sertion. Proof is sedulously avoided. Dr. Emmons may be in part excused for what he asserts respecting the transfer of guilt, which he pronounces to be impossible, because he appears to be utterly ignorant of the sense in which the word guilt is used by Calvinistic writers. He seems never to have dreamt that the term has any other sense than illdesert, but if he had had the least acquaintauce with the standard writers of theology, he would have known, that the definite sense of the word (reatus), in theological writers of every school, is merely a liableness to punishment, which we all know is capable of being transferred from one to another, if one man is permitted to assume the place and suffer the punishment of another. This ignorance of the force of the theological term, seems to have been common among even the learned theologians in New England; for we were informed by a friend, hat when a certain theological professor had published some elaborate sermons on the atonement, and when these were reviewed, and the meaning of this term explained, the learned author declared any such acceptation of the word to be new to him; and when his attention was further turned to Turretin's definition, he appeared to be filled with surprise.

Peremptory as Dr. Emmons is, in denying that guilt may be transferred, we will undertake to show that, in the true sense of the term, he himself holds what is far more objectionable. In the same discourse, (vol. iv. p. 490.) he says, "But if Adam conveyed neither sin, nor guilt, nor moral depravity to his descendants by his first transgression, how then did that act of disobedience make them sinners? The only proper and direct answer to this question is, that God placed Adam as the public head of his posterity, and determined to treat them according to his conduct." Here then we have the very thing which the old Calvinists called the imputation of Adam's sin. By this they meant, that this act of Adam was so set down to the account of his posterity, that they were treated as though they had committed it. Adam sinned, and in consequence lost the favour and image of God: his posterity came into the world under the same circumstances. If this is not the transfer of guilt, it is the punishment of innocent persons to whom no guilt is imputed. And we are left to choose between the justice and reasonableness of punishing the posterity of Adam for his act, when he stood as their public head and representative, and of punishing them just as he was punished, but without regard to sin.

The Hopkinsian divines seem to think that they have gained a great advantage over the old-fashioned Calvinists, when they discard the doctrine of imputation. They commonly refer the sufferings of Adam's posterity, and their subjection to death and misery, even in infancy, to their own inherent depravity, or corruption of nature, derived from him. Dr. Emmons could not do this, because he believed in no such corruption of nature. He therefore ascribes their sufferings to the sovereign appointment of God, who made Adam their public head, and determined to treat them according to his conduct; that is, to punish them as he punished him; or to bless them, if he proved obedient, as he blessed him; which is really nothing short of the imputation of his first sin. But let us see whether those who maintain that all his posterity derive a corrupt nature from him, but deny the imputation of his sin, relieve themselves from any real difficulty; or whether they do not involve themselves in far deeper and more inextricable perplexities. Adam's sin, say they, is not imputed to them. They are punished for their own sins. But how came they into this sinful state? It is answered, that according to the laws of nature, like begets its like, and as the parents became corrupt, they could only communicate the nature which they had, to their children. But who established these laws, according to which those who had never offended, and to whom no sin was imputed, should be brought into the world, under the greatest of all curses, a depraved nature? To allege that this happens according to the established laws of nature, is merely to state the fact, and not to account for it. That men are born in a sinful and miserable state is evident. What we wish to know is, how this can be accounted for under the government of a just and good God. There are only two answers which can ever be given. One is, that God has, in a sovereign way, so ordered things, that this should be the result: the other is, that the first man was constituted the federal, as well as the natural head of his race, and, as their representative, acted for them; so that as he sinned, they are treated as if this sin was their own, as indeed in a legal sense it is; or in other words, his sin is imputed to his posterity. Which of these answers is most reasonable and satisfactory, we leave to the judgment of the impartial reader. For us, the doctrine of imputation is the only source of any light on this obscure subject.

In regard to the person of the Mediator, we find nothing

peculiar in the writings of Dr. Emmons; except that with all his brethren of the new school of theology, he denies the eternal generation of the Son of God. In other respects, he is sound on the subject of the Trinity, the personal distinctions, and the supreme divinity of the Son and the Spirit. As this opinion respecting the relation between the Father and the Son has no connexion, that we can see, with the other parts of the system of New Divinity, we pass it by with the single remark, that a fondness for new opinions in theology, and a disposition, without urgent reason, to unsettle opinions long established in the church, are dangerous, and almost sure to lead into error. There is, in fact, nothing new in theology. The word of God was as full and complete when the canon of scripture was closed, as it is now or ever will be in the present life. Some things may be better understood at one time than another, but surely they who lived in the times of the apostles, had the best opportunity of knowing the true and full meaning of divine revelation; and it cannot for a moment be supposed, that the word of God contains important doctrines never discov ered until our age.

In the sermon on The Law of Paradise,' Dr. Emmons has published numerous errors, some of which are as dangerous in their tendency as any thing which has ever proceeded from his pen. He denies that there was any covenant entered into with Adam. He asserts that neither temporal nor spiritual death was included in the penalty; but only eternal death. He maintains, that God is not under any moral obligation to execute his threatenings; that otherwise the condition of fallen man would have admitted of no remedy; no Mediator could have been introduced. His own words touching the Law of Paradise are these: "Some suppose that it had the power of condemning not only those who actually transgressed it, but millions and millions of those who never could transgress it. They suppose that the threatening to Adam, in case of disobedience, extended not only to him, but to all his posterity, and did actually condemn them as well as him for his first transgression. This is to suppose, either that his posterity did actually eat of the forbidden fruit before they existed, or that they were condemned for a transgression which they never did nor ever could commit; each of which suppositions is absurd in the extreme, and barely to mention it is sufficient to refute it." Now this is by no means a fair

statement of the matter. The posterity of Adam are not personally condemned until they come into existence, when this sin is imputed. Or, Adam, having been constituted by God the federal head of all his posterity, violated the law given for the trial of his obedience: they were involved in the penalty incurred; so that they are actually born under the curse of a broken covenant.

But while Dr. Emmons thus unceremoniously rejects the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, he maintains a doctrine liable to all the objections which can be made to this. He holds, that God made no covenant with man, and did not give him a law the penalty of which could reach his offspring; yet he teaches, that God formed a constitution (where does he find this in the Bible?) which was totally distinct from the law given to Adam, and according to this constitution, determined that his posterity should become sinful or depraved, in consequence of his first sin. This constitution was neither expressed nor implied in the law respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and there is no reason to suppose that Adam knew any thing more of God's constituting him the public head of his posterity, than of his providing a Saviour for them, in case of disobedience. Here, indeed, is a new scheme, erected upon the ruins of the old; amounting to the same thing, in the end, but liable to far more weighty objections than have ever been alleged against the orthodox doctrine. The posterity of Adam have no concern whatever in his obedience or disobedience to the law given in Paradise; but God makes a constitution, according to which they are brought into existence sinners and depraved. Adam, without knowing any thing about what depended on his conduct, is made the occasion of his posterity coming into existence in the most wretched condition conceivable. It is, forsooth, a crying injustice for men to be punished on account of the sin of their father and representative, but no injustice to be subjected to the very same evils arbitrarily, by a constitution of which he knew nothing, and without any sin being laid to their account. Is not this the very same thing, as if they had been created sinners? Why treat them as Adam was treated, if they had no federal connexion with Adam? If the new divinity can bring us no better relief from our difficulties than this, we disclaim its aids; hoping that after this, there will be no more complaint of the injustice of punishing Adam's pos

terity for his sin, until it can be shown that the very same punishment may be inflicted without regard to any sin.

But having already received Dr. Emmons's opinions respecting original sin, we will direct our attention to the dangerous doctrine which he defends, in regard to the threatenings of God; namely, that he is under no obligation from his veracity to execute them. He makes a wide difference between the obligation to fulfil promises, and the obligation to inflict threatened punishment. An attempt is made to prove that neither temporal nor spiritual death was any part of the penalty of the law of Paradise; but that the death mentioned in connexion with the precept was nothing less than eternal death. Now as Adam did not die a temporal or eternal death on the day in which he sinned; and as spiritual death is no part of the penalty of the law, the threatening, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," could not have been executed. From these assumed principles, he draws the conclusion, that God is not bound to execute his threatenings. The obvious objection to this doctrine, from the veracity of God, he fairly states, as follows: "It is said that a divine threatening always pledges the divine veracity; so that whatever death God threatened to Adam, he was obliged to inflict upon him, or violate the truth, which was morally impossible; for God cannot lie. But he did not die temporal or eternal death, the day he sinned, which proves that spiritual death was the only death threatened." To which he answers: "It must be allowed that this reasoning is just and conclusive, if God does pledge his veracity to inflict the punishment which he threatens to the transgressors of his laws. But he never does pledge his veracity to inflict the punishment threatened in any law." This falls strangely on our ear. If it is so, then his threatenings do not mean what the words import. Suppose a man were solemnly to declare that if a servant or son committed a specified offence he should certainly be expelled from his house; would there be no breach of veracity in omitting to execute his own threatening? And shall man be more regardful of his word than the God of truth? If God says positively to man, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, has he not spoken the word, and will he not do it? Most certainly his veracity is pledged in every word which he speaks; and in regard to this point, it matters not whether the declaration be a promise, a threatening, or a mere asser