members, says:
they were men of eminent
learning, godliness, ministerial abilities, and
fidelity; and being not worthy to be one of
them myself, I may more fully speak the
truth which I know, even in the face of malice
and envy; that as far as I am able to judge by
the information of history and by any other
evidences, the Christian world since the days
of the Apostles, had never a Synod of more
excellent Divines than this Synod."* This
testimony will be readily credited when it is
remembered, that among this body, were such
men as Twisse and Arrowsmith, Calamy and
Burgess, Tuckney, and Goodwin, † and others
of scarcely less celebrity. It would be wea-
risome to refer by name to the catalogue of
illustrious men who have, since the Westmin-
ster Assembly, written in defence of the doc-
trine of Imputation. Let it suffice to quote
the testimony of two men, neither of whom
will be readily suspected of embracing a doc-
trine so palpably preposterous and unjust as
this is sometimes affirmed to be. One of
these is an eminent jurist, well skilled in the

* See Belfrage's History of the Shorter Catechism.
+ See Neale's History of the Puritans, Vol. III.

nature of laws and penalties, and the grounds of them; I mean the celebrated Lord Chief Justice Hale.

"God made man righteous at first, (he observes,) and gave him a righteous law; and inasmuch as man owed an infinite subjection to the Author of his being, he owed an exact obedience to this law of his Maker. Yet God was pleased to give him this law, not only as the rule of his obedience, but as a covenant of life and death, wherein the first man made a stipulation for himself and his posterity. And this was just; for he had in himself the race of all mankind. All succeeding generations are but pieces of Adam, who had, nor could have their being but from him, and so it was but reasonable and just for him to contract for all his posterity. And as it was just in respect of the person contracting, so it was in respect of the manner of the contract. The law which was his covenant, was a just and righteous law; a law suitable to the endowments and power of his nature. Again, the blessedness which by his obedience he was to hold, was not of his own creating or obtaining; it was the free gift of God; and it

is but reasonable that the Lord of this gift might give it in what manner he pleased; and it could not be unjust, that the Lord who gave him this blessedness, should give it him under what conditions he pleased. But he gave it him under most reasonable and just conditions, viz. an obedience to a most just and reasonable law, which suited with the ability and perfection of his nature; and therefore, when upon the breach of the covenant by man, he withdrew that blessedness from him and his posterity, he did no more than what was most just for him to do. And thus we stand guilty of that sin which our first father committed, and are deprived of that blessedness and life which our first father had; and the privation of that blessedness and immortality is death." Thus admirably does this great man clear the justice of God in constituting Adam the covenant-head of his posterity.

The other witness I propose to cite, is the late Rev. Dr. James P. Wilson, of Philadelphia. "The first intelligent creatures, (says Dr. Wilson,) were purely spiritual, and each stood or fell for himself. He united in man the spiritual and corporeal natures; he formed his

soul innocent and holy, and made ample provision for the comfort of his body; and as it would have been inconvenient to have brought all of the human family, which were to be in every generation, upon the earth at one time, and still more so, that every one standing or falling for himself, the earth should be the common habitation of beings perfectly holy, happy, and immortal, and also of cursed, perishing beings, he constituted the first man a representative of his race. 'Let us make man'-the race in one. To be fruitful, multiply, fill, and subdue the earth, were directed to the race. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die. He did die spiritually; he lost his innocence, became the subject of guilt, shame, and fear; and all his posterity inherit the fallen nature. Being already cursed, when afterwards arraigned and sentenced, it was only necessary to curse his enjoyments in this world. His posterity were included, for they are subjected to the same afflictions and death. If they had not been included in the sentence,' dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,' as they were a part of his dust not dying, it would not.

have been accomplished. That he represented the race, appears also from this, that the command was given to him before his wife was formed; and also because it does not appear that her eyes were opened to see her guilt and miserable condition, until he had eaten of the fruit; then the eyes of them both were opened."*

I shall now close this dissertation with a few practical observations.

First. The doctrine which has been discussed is a doctrine of great importance.

As this is a point about which there exists some diversity of opinion, I shall spend a little time upon it.

If all truth is valuable, (as will be generally conceded,) it cannot be a matter of indifference whether we have correct views on any subject which God has deemed it proper to embrace in a revelation of his will. It is not, however, on this ground simply, that the doctrine under consideration deserves to be regarded as important. It is important as ex

* See Dr. Wilson's Edition of Ridgley's Divinity, Vol. II., p. 77. Note by the Editor.