standards and standard writers, may be briefly summed up in the following points:

1. That God not only laid Adam under the simple obligation of a reasonable being to obey his law, but entered into a covenant with him, promising life upon "condition of perfect and personal obedience," and death upon the first act of disobedience (Con. of Faith, vii. 2.; Larger Cat, 20). This is hardly to be questioned. According to the account in Genesis ii. iii., certainly death is expressly stipulated upon the first disobedience; and, by inevitable implication, life was promised upon continued perfect obedience. But if this implication were doubtful, it is made certain by the express condition everywhere ascribed to the fulfilment of the law: "the man that doeth these things shall live by them " (Rom. x. 5; Gal. iii. 12).

2. Our first parents forfeited the blessings and incurred the penalties of this covenant, in that they, "being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit, and thereby fell from the estate of innocency in which they were created" (Larger Cat. 21). This needs no comment.

3. "The covenant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity; all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in that first transgression" (Larger Cat. 22). This explains beyond a peradventure in what sense our standards affirm that "we sinned in Adam," viz. as he acted not only for himself, but as our representative. Hence the imputation of that sin and its guilt to his descendants. Hence both catechisms put the first element of man's fallen state in "the guilt of Adam's first sin," while the Confession (vi. 3) declares" they [our first parents] being the root of all mankind, the guilt [obligation to punishment] of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation." The proofs that this

stipulation included their posterity with our first parents, are: 1. That the penalty denounced against our first parents (Gen. iii. 15-17), has been undeniably executed upon their descendants, showing that they were included in the covenant of which this is a part. 2. As has before been shown, it is affirmed, Rom. v. 12 et seq., that while "by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," while it "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (probably infants), yet this was in such wise, that the "judgment was by one to condemnation"; yea, "by one offence upon all men to condemnation"; moreover, that they are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam as they are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. This proves that Adam's posterity were so included with him in the covenant broken by him in eating the forbidden fruit, that his sin was imputed to them, reckoned to their account, as a basis of judicial treatment, and that sentence of condemnation issued against them for it.

3. The same thing appears from the parallel between Adam and Christ, of whom Adam is declared the figure (Rom. v. 14), who is the "last Adam" (1 Cor. xv. 45), and (vs. 47) the "last man," in contrast with the "first man." This parallel must refer to the single point of headship, and the manner in which these two great heads of our race respectively bring condemnation and justification upon the parties represented by them. As it is undeniably by the merits of Christ's righteousness reckoned to our account that we are justified, so it is by the charging to our account of Adam's sin that we are condemned. As has been before shown, it is this view alone that preserves, to our apprehension at least, the gratuitous justification of the sinner, through Christ's merits exclusively, intact, or protects it logically from subversion.

4. As before shown, it is the only way of reconciling the deplorable, lapsed condition of our race with the justice of

God. According to other theories, this terrible visitation has come upon us without any previous probation, either in ourselves or a fair representative. It seems to us, therefore, that by the rejection of this view much is lost, and nothing gained towards a sound theodicy.

5. The concessions of opposers. Dr. Hopkins opposed this doctrine, yet over and over again admits its main elements in such language as the following: "Adam was considered and treated as comprehending all mankind. ... .. The covenant made with him was made with all mankind, and constituted him the public and confederating head of the whole race of men, and he acted in this capacity as being the whole; and his obedience was considered as the obedience of mankind; and as by this Adam was to obtain eternal life had he performed it, this comprehended and insured the eternal life of all his posterity. And, on the contrary, his disobedience was the disobedience of the whole, of all mankind; and the threatened penalty did not respect Adam personally, or as a single individual; but his whole posterity, included in him and represented by him" (Hopkins's System of Divinity, Vol. I. pp. 192, 193). We could hardly wish for a more explicit statement of what we have set forth. It is not our province to reconcile it with much of a contrary sort. It is quite common for the extreme and strenuous opponents of the doctrine to fall into such phrase as that "Adam was not on trial for himself alone, but for his posterity," which, developed in all its implications, involves all that we have maintained. The great objection to this doctrine has been, that according to it, Adam was consti tuted representative of his posterity without their consent. But if this objection is valid, it impeaches many of the natural and providential arrangements of God. Are not parents and magistrates representatives of those who never could consent to their assumption of this position, so that the children of a family, or a nation, are often dealt with as if the acts of those set over them in the Lord were their own? Cannot a ruler plunge into the horrors of war those of his

subjects who were opposed to him and the war? Are not children, in spite of themselves, born to the poverty and degradation of poor or worthless parents? The objection, therefore, proves itself groundless by proving too much, and assailing the undeniable proceedures of the Almighty.

But it is objected again, that according to this scheme God inflicts sin as the punishment of sin; and this is incongruous with his nature, making him the author of sin. To this we reply, that this language of "punishing sin with sin," is chiefly, if not wholly, that of opponents. We hold to what the scripture undoubtedly teaches, when it represents God as giving men up to their own hearts' lusts, or to a strong delusion, or of hardening their hearts, for their sin and obduracy; not that God thus positively creates sin; but that, in punishment of it, he withdraws the gifts, endowments, and restraining grace of his Spirit, without which the mere natural principles of action become inordinate, unbalanced, and at once sink into árážia and avóμia. Such withdrawment of God's favor and Spirit is undeniably set forth in scripture as a penalty of sin often inflicted. So in the present case; original sin is exhibited in all our standards as taking rise in the "guilt of Adam's first sin"; then the "want [absence or loss] of that righteousness wherein he was created," as the immediate consequence of incurring this guilt; then, next in order, and as the instantaneous effect of this loss, is the "corruption of his whole nature," the disorder and abnormity arising from the loss of the regulative, harmonizing, and purifying power of original righteousness. The Confession of Faith (VI. 2) puts the same truth in another aspect: "By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in the faculties and parts of soul and body." Here their sin and the loss of original righteousness are spoken of as if they implied each other,' while it is by

1 The standard view on the two preceding heads is well put in the following language of Turretin: "Poena quam peccatum Adami in nos accersit, vel est privatica vel positiva. Prior est carentia et privatio justitiae originalis, Posterior VOL. XXL No. 81.

14

virtue of this that they became "dead in sin," etc. The next article proceeds to say that "the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity," etc. That this is the present condition of our race, who are both "by nature children of wrath" and "dead in trespasses and sins," is the undeniable representation of scripture (Eph. ii. 1-3). That this view of the genesis of the successive stages of original sin, given in our standards, accords with scripture, and sufficiently disposes of the objection that thus God "punishes sin with sin," we think needs not to be further argued.

A single observation further. While, on this scheme, the withdrawment of divine favor and communion from our race,—of which corruption is an instantaneous consequent, - is due to Adam's sin, yet the further punishment of subsequent misery and death is inflicted with primary reference to this inherent personal pollution and attendant guilt, originating as aforesaid, and the actual transgressions proceeding from it.

The question whether we are called on to repent of Adam's sin as if we committed it personally, is sufficiently answered by what has been already presented. As it was not a sin committed by us personally, we are not to repent of it as such. We are to feel humbled as members of a race fallen from its integrity and purity, on a most favorable trial, in short, as "degenerate plants of a strange vine.”

We will now inquire a moment as to the extent of this fall. This will help to estimate how far there is any ability on the part of man to recover himself from it. Presbyterians find no language more clear and exact than their own

est mors tum temporalis, tum aeterna, et in genere mala omnia, quae peccatoribus immittuntur. Etsi secunda necessario sequitur primam ex natura rei, nisi intercedat Dei misericordia, non debet tamen cum ea confundi. Quoad primam dicimus Adami peccatum nobis imputari immediate ad poenam privativam, quia est causa privationis justitiae originalis, et sic corruptionem antecedere debet, saltem ordine naturae; Sed quoad posteriorem potest dici imputari mediate quoad poenam positivam, quia isti poenae obnoxii non sumus, nisi postquam nati et corrupti sumus."-Loc. IX. Quaest. 1x. 14.