transaction took place at all, says Fisher, says Luther. Where then do you find the place, where do you find the time, for such a specification of all future generations? Such, then, was the real form of the covenant of works. Not a bargain made by Adam after he was created, acting in the several names of all his seed, and contracting specifically for them; but an ordinance of God, a constitution of man's being, coexistent with himself— which contemplated his nature as to be developed in a progeny, and united that progeny, in its destinies, with himself.

But perhaps I am dislocating the passages appealed to, and forcing on them a construction never intended nor thought of by the authors. Sir, it may be: you had best consult the contexts. But one thing is certain: Luther and Fisher do not stand alone in asserting this view of the covenant of works. I will give you examples of expressions yet more decidedly heterodox; if it be heterodoxy to deny this personal specification of individuals in the covenant, and personal representation of them every one in Adam, when the covenant was first ordained: I will quote for you heresies most palpable and flagrant; if it be heresy to say that Adam was the representative of human nature. Hear what Marshal says, in his book on sanitification.

"The first Adam was all mankind, as Esau and Jacob were two nations in the womb of Rebecca. God made all in our first parents, able and inclined to do his law; and in that pure NATURE our obligation to obedience was first laid upon us," &c. &c. Marshal on Sanct. Direction v.

Hear Thomas Boston.

"I shall show the ground or reason why Adam's first sin, or breaking of the covenant of works, is our sin, our breaking of it.

"1. He was our natural and seminal head, the natural root of all mankind. God set up the HUMAN NATURE in him pure and undefiled, blessed him with fruitfulness, and from him all mankind derive their pedigree. So that as Levi, being in the loins of Abraham when Melchizedec met him, paid tythes in Abraham, so we being in the loins of Adam when the tempter met him, sinned and broke the covenant him. But

"2. Which is the main thing, he was our federal head in the covenant of works, our representative in that bargain. There was a proper covenant betwixt God and Adam" (what sort of a proper covenant, Luther and Fisher have told us);" and in it Adam was not considered as a private person, but stood as the head of all mankind in it, acting for himself and for his posterity, whom he

represented, even as the second Adam in the covenant of grace. And thus his sin was ours," &c.

"The sum of the matter lies here; all mankind being originally one in Adam, were made legally one in him, and with him, by the covenant of works entered into with Adam, as the head of all mankind, constituted by God himself, the infinitely wise and absolute Lord of all the creatures. By the bond of the covenant superadded to the natural tie betwixt him and us, we were made one with him to all the purposes of the covenant. And being thus one with him, his sin in breaking the covenant was ours as well as his." Boston's View of the Covenant of Works, part iii. sect. 4.

"Adam was the compend of the whole world." Idem, part i.

"The very truth is, Adam, by his fall, threw down our whole nature headlong into the same destruction, and drowned his whole offspring in the same gulf of misery. And the reason is, because by God's appointment he was not to stand or fall as a single person only, but as a common public person, representing all mankind to come of him. therefore, as all that happiness, all those gifts and endowments, which were bestowed upon him, were not bestowed on him alone, but also on the whole nature of man; and as that covenant which was made with him was made with whole mankind; even so he, by breaking covenant, lost all, as well for us as for himself: as he received all for himself and us, so he lost all both for himself and us." Marrow. Mod. Div. chap. i. sect. 3.

Who was it, sir, does Boston say, was set up in Eden, "pure and undefiled, and blessed with so much fruitfulness?" Were you and I set up? Were you and I too there, so innocent and blessed? O, no! but that proscribed, that unfortunate wight "human nature" was set up, and beautified, and blessed; and that in the person of our first father, Adam.

Who was it, does Fisher say, that inherited "all that happiness, all those gifts and endowments, which were bestowed upon him?" Did we enjoy those gifts? Were those endowments ours? Fisher does not even glance at our existence: but he declares that that piece of heretical pravity, "the whole nature of man," inherited them all.

Who, does Marshal say, were the "nations," the embrio nations, that struggled for the mastery? Were Deborah and Barrak, were Sampson and Solomon, were "the twelve dukes of Edom," found in this array? No: Jacob and Esau were themselves

the nations: and Israel and Edom, afterwards swoln to their tens of thousands, were but embrio Jacob and embrio Esau developed in their children. So, says Marshal, so, says Boston, were all the generations of mankind summed up in Adam, "the compend❞ of their nature. While Adam alone existed, he alone was known; as when Jacob only existed, he alone was known. And as Edom's myriads were but the development of the embrio Esau; the world's millions are evolved from the embrio Adam. It was Esau in the womb, it was Esau in Idumea: it was Adam in the garden, it is Adam throughout the world.

Does my gloss misrepresent the meaning of my authors? I grant you they have interwoven expressions with these paragraphs, that do not well comport with the doctrine I infer. But that is only to admit, what every man may see, that their own minds vacillated between two different systems: that they held systematically the individuallizing principle; but at the same time saw, and admitted, and published, evident and important principles on this subject which by no means comport with their systematic view. They attempted to combine them; they even frame their sentences with an effort to embrace both views. But it is mine to show you that these things are incompatible: mine to demonstrate that the sentiments I avow are not peculiar to my little essay, but are to be found in the standard authors of the church. Sir, if these writers contradict themselves; if they mingle things together which can never be amalgamated; am I therefore to blame? If I agree with them when they teach that "Adam is the compend of our nature;" that " Adam was all mankind, as Esau and Jacob were two nations;" that "all mankind were originally one in Adam;" that "the covenant was contracted in the heart and frame" of Adam; that it did not consist of "verbal expressions:"—if I agree with them in all this; if I call it good sound doctrine, wholesome food, my Lord Peter's big brown loaf, for instance; am I therefore to turn round with them, when they speak the other system? am I to say it is a good brown fourpenny loaf; and at the same time call it a shoulder of excellent mutton? Sir, let my Lord Peter digest these contradictions; let his followers declare that " Adam himself was all mankind," and yet that all the individuals who were afterward to spring from him,

were individually and personally represented by him too. Let them believe, if they can, that the covenant consisted not of "verbal expressions," and yet hold that it recognized personally and formally the millions of Adam's seed. Let them reconcile it to themselves how Adam can have been created a covenant head, and yet enter into covenant after his creation. I assume no principle which they do not admit; I build upon assumptions which they themselves call sound. In this there can be no heresy. But if they entwine with these principles others which I do not admit, if they make assumptions to which I cannot subscribe, I should think it gives the controversy a very different shape: and your libel should have charged me with disbelieving certain truths, instead of with believing and teaching novel errors.

But Boston comes up yet more closely to my mark. He tells us in one of his miscellaneous essays, that "the scripture speaks of Christ and Adam, as if there never had been any other persons in the world but they, they being the two public persons in which are all mankind. **** And as it is then, and not till then, that we become the children of Adam by natural generation, we are reputed to have sinned in him; so it is then, and not till then, that we become the children of Christ by faith and regeneration, we are reputed to have suffered in him." Boston's Essay on the question, whether all sins, past, present, and to come, are pardoned together and at once.

Hear him again: "The way to enter personally into the covenant of grace, so as to partake of the benefits thereof unto salvation, is to unite with Christ the head of the covenant by faith. Being thus ingrafted into him, ye shall partake of all that happiness which is secured in Christ mystical in the everlasting covenant; even as through your becoming children of Adam by natural generation, ye are personally entered into the first covenant, so as to fall under that sin and death which passed upon all men by the breach thereof." Bost. Cov. of Grace. Head I. Chap. II.

In what way, does Boston say, do you become personally entered into the first covenant? "By natural generation ye are personally entered." When are we reputed to have sinned in Adam? 66 Then, and not till then, when we become the children of Adam by natural generation."-Sir, this is monstrous doctrine. It fairly denies that you, as an individual, fell with Adam when he fell; for it alledges that never till some thirty years ago was his

sin imputed to you. It denies that the covenant recognized you personally, when it was entered up in paradise: for it was " by na tural generation" you were "personally entered."

Will any man attempt to get clear of these quotations? Am I to be told that Adam's sin might be imputed to us from the first, but yet not so as to be "personally" imputed? Sir, let the prosecutors in this cause adopt the alternative, if they admire it. It is the very error groundlessly charged on me in the first and second counts. I have always disavowed it; I cannot embrace it now.Shall I be told that Adam might represent us from the first, and yet not till the moment of natural generation we be "reputed to have sinned in him"? To this I would respond in language of high authority; " what things soever the law saith, it saith unto them who are under the law." If the covenant recognized all individuals in Adam, then its penalty was attached to all. If represented in Adam, their standing was as his; the law spoke to them, for they were under the law; and if it reputed him a sinner, then they were all reputed sinners too. Now this is just the thing denied by Thomas Boston. He says we are only then reputed sinners when united to Adam by natural generation.-Once more, shall I be told that all individuals may have been included from the first, under the covenant of works; although, till the moment of natural generation, they are not "personally entered into it?" I take it, they could hardly be included under it, and at the same time be out of it: and surely they must have been out of it, antecedently to the moment in which they are said to "enter into it."-Finally, shall I be told that Thomas Boston often asserts the opposite of that for which I plead? This I do not deny. I could myself refer you to multitudes of passages, in which he does assert it. But what of that? Why, sir, only this, that Thomas Boston is by no means uniform, by no means consistent in his views. He often suffered his own vigorous mind to be trammeled, and his just conceptions to be darkened, by the systems of the day. You see, however, that in the passages quoted, he speaks as I speak, reasons as I reason. Of course my view is his. This is all I contend for. I by no means contend that any man is infallible; or any system of theology in being, perfectly consistent or perfectly sound.