Adam and his posterity. the doings of a minister of state affect not only the present generation, but generations yet unborn? Surely we can.But suppose we could not form any conception how, yet if the fact is established by undeniable evidence, we shall eel bound to believe it. Well, let us examine the evidence.-Mr. H has quoted two texts from the fifth chapter of Ro mans, (verses 11, 19) as those which he supposes we should bring forward to establish this doctrine; but although taken in connexion with the rest of the chapter, they doubtless mean the same thing; yet because they admit of controver sy, and because we have enough without them, we shall not rely particularly upon them at this time. The first we shall produce is Rom. v. 18.—“Therefore, as by the offence of ONE, judgment come upon ALL to condemnation." What

Can we not form some idea how

language could be more explicit than this? Here the offence of Adam is said to be the cause why all men are condemned, Again, "For the judgment was by one to condemnation ;" ver. 16. This text if possible is more decisive than the former; for while that attributes the universal condemnation to the offence of one man, this attributes it to one offence. That this is the true meaning of the 16th verse, will appear from this ;-The one offence to condemnation, is set in opposition to the many offences unto justification. At verse 15 the Apostle lays it down as an established point, that "Through the offence of one, many be dead." Again, "For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where 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."

Now we know that the similitude of Adam's transgression was that of actual sin; and yet it is here stated that death reigned even over those who had not sinned actually, as he

did. And as a further confirmation of this sense of the text, the persons referred to had no knowledge of the law, (as Adam had) and actual sin was not imputed to them: and yet death reigned over them. The reason of which is over and over stated to be the one offence of Adam. If we want more proof that our natural death is in consequence of Adam's sin, we may find it 1 Cor. xv. 22.-" For as IN Adam all die." No one will say that the Apostle here does not mean the death of the body, as he is treating particularly of the resurrection. But if so, then we all die for Adam's one offence.

Again, if Mr. H. supposes that the death of our bodies is occasioned only by our own actual transgressions, and not by Adam's one offence, we should be extremely glad if he would account for two circumstances.-1. The death of children, in the embryo state.-2. For the afflictions and death of the brute creation. Do infants sin before they are born, as the cause of their often going from the womb to the grave? Do the brute creation sin against God, as the cause why they suffer death? Once more,-When God pronounced the curse of thorns, thistles, toil and temporal death, upon our wretched world, did he not say to Adam, Because THOU hast eaten, &c. ? Alas! it is but too plain, that all mankind are involved in the fall of Adam!

Let us next examine the passage which Mr. H. supposes is irreconcilable with the doctrine we support." The soul that sinneth-it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek. xviii. 20. By consulting the 2d and 3d verses of this chapter, we shall find a key to this text-"What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,

The fathers have eaten our grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel." It would seem, then, that they had formerly had occasion to use this proverb. But what gave occasion for the use of this proverb in Israel ? Doubtless the declaration of the Almighty, Exod. xxxiv. 7, that he would visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children, &c. Instances of this are found both in the old and new testaments. See II. Kings, xxiv. 3, 4, where the sins of Mannasseh's reign, were visited on Jehoiachin and his people. See also Math. xxiii. 35, where all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zacharias, was to be required of one generation. After all, however, I believe that these things are spoken particularly of the Jews as a nation, and with a direct reference to the rigor of the dispensation under which they lived; and are not of so general application to any as to them.-Jer. xxxi 27, 35. If this is a just view of the subject, then the passage brought forward by Mr. H. to show that we do not suffer for Adam's sin, has no reference to the subject of debate. The next question is as follows-" Is not the doctrine of total moral depravity inconsistent with the perfection of God ?" p. 96. As the answer of Mr. H. to this question, is much the same as his remarks on the universal government of God, we shall make but a few remarks upon what is here demanded.Speaking of many people he says-"They receive it as conclusive evidence, that he did not in any sense, wish to prevent it, and of course, that he is not opposed to sin.". Well, does Mr. H. suppose that God does wish to prevent that, which according to him, is for the greatest possible good? And if not do they not reason conclusively, who say that, on this principle, he is not opposed to sin? What!

opposed to what "infinite wisdom saw best on the whole

Again, he says, " He might have established our race in a state as perfect as that of angels." And what evidence have we that he did not ? The fall of man is no evidence that he did not, for angels fell. But they did not all fall.True-because one did not stand or fall for all the rest, as in the case of Adam and his posterity. But if he had established man in a state as perfect as angels, "How would it have been possible for him to have exhibited many of his perfections, which will now be seen with endless and increasing lustre ?" I answer we cannot tell how he would have done it; but as he is infinite in wisdom, power, and goodness, we believe he would have found out a way without the aid of sin He next refers to the case of Joseph's brethren, and asks,-"Was it consistent with the character of God, so to overrule their conduct as to make it the occasion of great blessings to them and their posterity ?"I answer, it was not; but what has this to do with the question in debate? The question at issue is, whether the introduction of moral evil, is consistent with the perfections of God, and not whether it is consistent for him to overrule sin when it is introduced. The latter no one denies, but the former remains to be proved if Calvinism be true.

His next argument is the same in substance, only on a larger scale.

serves,

The next question is in relation to free agency. He ob. "Is not this doctrine inconsistent with free agency." This subject, also, has been considered in a former part of this work, yet we shall notice a question or two, of Mr. H. here. "What is there in the nature of sin, that is more inconsistent with liberty of action, than holiness?" I answer, of holiness Christ observed," If the son shall make you

free, ye shall be free indeed." I conclude from this that the more holiness we have, the more freedom we shall enjoy, On the other hand, if we are permitted to judge of the nature of sin by its effects and consequences, we must suppose that freedom cannot long consist with a course of constant sinning. Its nature is such that it deprived the devil of his liberty, and bound him under chains of darkness to the judgment of the great day. And such is its nature, that it deprived man of his liberty, and sunk him into total depravity; and but for the grace of God, in Christ, he must have remained forever, in that state. divine grace, he is again raised to trial, and a chance for heaven.

But through the riches of agency and life ; has a new

I an

Again-is it not sin which will finally deprive the sinner of heaven, and shut him up in the dungeon of hell? And has not the same sinner, while on earth, liberty to go to heaven? And can he go there from hell? Again, he says, "And why may we not as well deny that a perfectly holy being can be free, as one that is perfectly sinful? swer, because we have many examples of perfectly holy beings exercising their liberty, and sinning; but we have no examples of beings perfectly sinful, exercising liberty and performing that which is holy, without the assistance of divine grace. Now let the reader judge for himself which is most consistent with freedom, holiness or sin.

We now come to the last question under this head,—" If sin consist only in the voluntary act of the soul, how can infants be sinners?" p. 97.

In answering this question Mr. H. seems to have no small degree of difficulty. Hence, he observes," It is generally considered that the answer to this question is one of the most difficult in the whole system of theology." The chief ground, however, of his difficulty appears to be this; having

1