death reigned by one; much more they which receive abun dance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19. For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; 21. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign, through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ, our Lord."

Such is the passage, and without entering into a minute and critical examination of its several parts,* you will see obviously presented in it the following points: (1.) That the sin of Adam is regarded as the source of our ruin. This sin is thus expressed, "by one man sin entered into the world," "through the offence of one," "by one man's offence," 99 66 by one man's disobedience." (2.) This sin of Adam caused death, that is the infliction of the penal evil which God had threatened as the punishment of sin; "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." (3.) This death or penal evil, affected not Adam alone, but all his posterity; "and so death passed on all men,” "through the offence of one many be dead," "by one man's offence, death reigned." (4.) This penalty of death was inflicted upon all because they had become sinners in Adam, "and so death passed on all, for that all have sinned;" by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners.” (5.) All men became sinners not merely by personal transgression, (this is not the point the Apostle is discussing,) but by the imputation of Adam's sin; "so death passed on all men, for that, [or in whom,] all have sinned;" "for until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law; nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Here you will see that the Apostle asserts, that there could be no sin without law, and yet before the giving of the law of Moses, there was sin, and consequently death, and this death reigned universally,

66

*A very satisfactory analysis of it may be found in Professor Hodge's Commentary on the Romans.

even over those who had not committed actual sin, or "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Even infants died before the law of Moses, and their death was the evidence of their sin. But they had not sinned actually, therefore it was by the disobedience of Adam that they were constituted sinners; in other words, as the whole drift of the passage evidently shows, they, with all others, were regarded and treated as sinners through the imputation of Adam's sin. Read over the passage in connexion with these leading ideas, and all appears clear and consistent; and then we can understand the other part of the comparison, in which Jesus Christ, as the representative of his people, is set forth as obviating the evils of the first man's apostasy. "The free gift" is by him; " many are made righteous" through his obedience; justification of life is by him. As "sin abounded" by Adam, " grace did much more abound" in Christ, and as "sin reigned unto death," grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life. by Jesus Christ, our Lord." I have but glanced at this passage, and yet how clearly do we see in it the representative character of the first and last Adam, with the respective consequences of their different conduct.

SO "

Parishioner. I am satisfied on these points, and now, I should feel obliged if you would give me your views on the nature of the penalty incurred by our race in consequence of their legal connexion with Adam. We often hear of men being born with a nature totally depraved. How is this? Are men physically depraved? Is the very substance of the soul corrupt? Are they as bad as they can be?

Pastor. I perceive that you have been more or less affected by the misrepresentations of those who oppose the orthodox faith. They distort the truth, and then charge their perversions on those who utterly reject them. Orthodox Presbyterians neither affirm that the substance of the soul is corrupted by the fall, nor that all men are by nature as depraved as they can be. We can attach no very definite idea to the expression physical depravity, the doctrine with which we are charged; we, however, believe that all men are "by nature the children of wrath," that is, that on account of the transgression of our first father, they are born under the frown and curse of God; and also, that they are depraved in all the faculties of their souls. The penalty annexed to the covenant was death, a term which is used

by the sacred writers, to denote not only the separation of the spirit from the body, but all the penal consequences of sin. When we speak of the infliction of the penalty upon Adam's posterity on account of his offence, we do not mean that any positive evil was infused into them by the Almighty, as this would be an impeachment of his spotless perfections; but we mean, that they are destitute of that holy conformity to the image of God, in which Adam was created, and in which he continued until his disobedience; and that a positive disposition to sin, and universal corruption of the soul, result from the defect or absence of this origi nal righteousness. The first dispositions and inclinations are evil; the understanding is so darkened, that it perceives not the beauties of holiness; the will so rebellious, that it resists the divine authority; the affections so debased, that they exclusively fasten on sensual objects. This corruption is so general that none have escaped; "they have all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy, there is none that doeth good, no not one." It is so extreme and radical, that we are said to be "dead in trespasses and in sins."

The language of Scripture in portraying the fallen condition of our race is remarkably emphatic, and clearly conveys the impression that the disease of our nature is one of the most virulent character. "Shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," our conduct proves that we are "transgressors from the womb;" the corrupt fountain is continually sending forth its corrupt streams. The natural tendency of this corruption, is obvious; it estranges us from God here, and if not rectified by grace, inevitably brings upon us the pains of the second death. Thus, original sin consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, or liableness to punishment on account of it, together with the loss of original righteousness and the corruption of our whole nature. This may be an awful picture, and yet in no one lineament is it overdrawn. Look abroad through the world; see the universal spread of vice and misery; behold the triumphs of disease and death, even over the infant of a day old, who not having personally transgressed, could not thus be punished for personal sin; and explain, if it be possible, the painful facts, upon any other principle than that which has been already stated.

Parishioner. I admit the depravity of man in its fullest extent, but is it not sufficient to say, without any reference

to a covenant arrangement, that it results in some undefinable way from our connexion with Adam?

Pastor. I think not. This is, to say the least of it, an obscure way of speaking, and absolutely explains nothing. For my part, I feel anxious to justify the ways of God to man, and, as the Divine Being has condescended to explain his procedure, I rejoice to know that the calamity which has befallen our race, has not come in an undefinable way, but agreeably to a just divine arrangement.

Parishioner. Permit me, my dear sir, to inquire in this connexion, why it is that some, in explaining the nature of sin, seem so strenuously to insist that all sin consists in voluntary action?

Pastor. The design is obvious. The opponents of the doctrine which we have been urging, have defined sin to be in every case a wilful breach of a known law; and, according to this definition, they have asserted that there is no original sin in the sense which the orthodox teach. If their definition of sin be exact and accurate, the doctrine of original sin must be abandoned. But their definition is not correct; sin is not merely a transgression of the law, but also a want of conformity to it; and besides, as we have already seen, sin may be imputed, upon principles of acknowledged justice. It is not therefore true that every sin consists in voluntary action. It is the dictate of common sense, as well as of Scripture, that before the voluntary act of sinning, there must be a previous sinful disposition. The bent or tendency of the mind is towards sin, and when not resisted and overcome, actual sin must ensue. We are told that "from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts," &c. and this is on the principle that a "corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Men must therefore be corrupt in heart, before they can be corrupt in action, and it is utterly incredible that all men should become sinners, if it be true, as some maintain, that the heart has no inherent or native sinful bias or disposition.

Parishioner. I am satisfied. I find that my difficulties on this important doctrine of the Fall, arose not from any thing in the doctrine itself, but from my ignorance of the manner in which it should be stated and defended. Now sir, if you have no objection, we will converse on the method of MAN'S RECOVERY.

Pastor. I am most ready to comply with your request; and first we will consider the provision made for our

recovery by Jesus Christ, the last Adam. The doctrine of Atonement, as I understand it, I will briefly state. The Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, being God and Man in one person, offered himself by a divine arrangement, as the substitute of those who were eternally elected to everlasting life, and being recognized as standing in their place, he obeyed the preceptive law for them, and having their sins imputed to him, or set to his account, he sustained the penalty which was due to them. Here you will perceive is a double imputation, as we have explained it; our sins were set to Christ's account, and the law exacted from him the whole punishment that was due to them, and thus we become fully released from the penalty; and Christ's righteousness, resulting from his perfect obedience to the preceptive law, is set to our account, and thus we become entitled to heaven.

Parishioner. Before you proceed further I wish to propose a few questions; and first, permit me to ask how it is consistent with our notions of such a relation, that Christ should be the eternal Son of the Father as you have just affirmed? I have been led to believe that Christ became the Son of God merely in consequence of his official designation as Mediator, and not by an eternal generation, of which I cannot form any adequate and distinct conception.

Pastor. I would state first in reply to your query, that the terms Father and Son are correlates; that is, if the first person in the Trinity was a Father from everlasting, the second person must have been a Son from everlasting; the one evidently implies the other. If we cannot with propriety style Christ the everlasting Son, neither can we style the first person in the Trinity, the everlasting Father.

Again, the peculiar designation of the second person in the Trinity is, the Son of God; his Sonship is his proper personality, and if we say that his Sonship was the result of the divine will, as was his appointment as Mediator, we at once declare his inferiority to the Father, or, in other words, divest him of his divine character. It is in full view of this result that we find the Socinians uniformly denying the eternal generation of the Son; and those who sneer at it in our own church, are just so far preparing the way for the introduction of Socinianism.

Parishioner. I see that it is so, and therefore I am not disposed further to object to the phraseology employed, to