the transgression of our first parents, the Son of God had not interposed as mediator? Here two parties are formed; the one affirming, that as all Adam's pos. terity were included in the covenant, the divine faithfulness required, that they should be brought into existence to suffer its penalty. Others insist, that the pe nalty must have been inflicted the moment guilt was incurred; and that, therefore, Adam and Eve would have been put to death, unless Jesus Christ had inter, posed "in the nick of time." This last seems to be Mr. M'C.'s opinion. There are obvious glances at it in his first publication; and he quotes the passage above transcribed in his defence before the synod, with apparent approbation, and even reasons from it. Let us then bring these propositions to the test, and ascertain whether they mean any thing, or nothing; let us try whether the questions admit of solution, or whether they lie "ultra flammantia mænia mundi,” where no ray of light visible to mortal eye ever fell. You ask me what would have been the consequences to Adam and his posterity-IF-If what? If God had given him no supernatural instruction, no revealed law of religion? I answer, I do not know. I have laid before me, God's plan of his world in the bible, you draw your diameter through the periphery of that divine plan, and ask me how God should make a world out of the other half, I answer, I do not know. But this I know, it is no longer a circle, but a semicircle. It is no longer the plan of God's world. You allow God to make half a world according to his own plan: and throwing away the remainder of his plan; you command me to complete the draft. You ask me what would have been the consequence resulting consequences, form but one grand whole, one mighty conception of the infinite mind; and again you draw your diameter through the periphery of the system; you present me one half; and ask me how God could make a whole world out of it; without employing the other half. Are these questions which admit solution? Can they be known? Is not all this world-making? Let us take warning from the fate of our physical cosmogonists, who, after employing centuries by fire and by water making a world, some out of something, and others out of nothing; some out of indivisible particles of matter, and some out of indivisible mathematical points, have succeeded, at last, in leaving chaos doubly confounded. I am afraid the moral cosmogonists will fare no better. And truly a pity it is, and a tearful jest, to see human speculation so lavished on insolvable questions, while those which are not only solvable, but of incalculable practical importance, are so generally neglected, perhaps sometimes despised. But it must be so. We will, it seems, expend on perpetual motions, time that had better be employed on carts and wheel-barrows; and weary ourselves in squaring the circle; while by neglecting a few ragged accounts of a few paltry dollars and cents, we step out of the world, bequeathing jealousies and wrath, lawsuits and strife, and the long interminable feuds of kindred blood, to our heirs, executors, and assigns for ever. But let us sum up the positive doctrine which has been ascertained in this discussion. 1. That God, by his sovereign wisdom and power, ereated Adam with a natural adaptation to be the parent and representative of a race, each of whom might be affected by his virtue or vice, and participate in his happiness or misery. 2. That God did, in his infinite wisdom, make a positive, explicit, verbal covenant with Adam, exactly corresponding with the natural powers and adaptation of the creature; in which he promised life, as the reward of obedience, and threatened death as the punishment of disobedience; and that this covenant, this law, includes Adam's posterity, or more strictly every human person. 3. That in this covenant Adam did not represent simple human nature, for he did not represent Jesus Christ, who possessed human nature: nor human nature considered as descending from him by ordinary generation, for he represented Eve, who did not so descend from him. But that he represented all human persons, considered in their distinct personality, descending from him in any way which God might be pleased to appoint. 4. That though Adam did not know his posterity individually; yet God knew them all; their names, periods, habitations, and every thing respecting them, and did intend that this covenant should include every one of them, and no one else-and Adam must have assented to this covenant in its fullest terms. These then I consider as established truths, and shall hold myself intitled to assume them as truths, in the subsequent part of this investigation. Let us, on the other hand, sum up the subjects which we have rejected as false, or incapable of being proved. 1. A covenant of works, distinct from that made verbally with Adam, we have proved to be without scriptural support, and to be an erroneous conception. 2. That we cannot decide what sort of world this would have been, had God not instructed Adam, and given him the revealed law, or covenant-that we dare not assert that to create a world on such a plan would be worthy of God. But we are sure enough that this is not the plan of the world which God has actually created. 3. That we do not know what would have been the consequence in respect to the human family, if Jesus Christ had not immediately interposed-we do not know whether Adam and Eve would have suffered the infliction of death instantly on their transgression, if Christ had not interposed-we do not know whether without such interposition they must have been kept in being, in order that all their posterity might come into being. In fine, we do not know whether it would have been worthy of God to create such a race as ours, foreseeing their fall and fate; and not to provide a remedial system. But this we know, that such is not the world that God has made. And leaving the worldmaker to inhabit his own world, Quas condidit arces We shall content ourselves with humbly tracing the laws, enjoying the comforts, and attempting the duties which belong to the world, in which divine sovereignty has been pleased to order our lot. Now we shall in our further discussions reject all these notions, and questions which we have thus proved to be either false or insolvable. We shall not pay the least notice to them, nor once name their name, nor look after a single one of the numerous consequences they generate; unless some of them should happen so to block up our way that we cannot readily pass. If, therefore any one should think that he will have need of any or all of these principles, in any future part of this discussion, or any other discussion whatever, I give him fair warning to turn back and examine carefully what has been offered on each subject; let him prove to his own satisfaction, that these subjects are decided in the sacred volume.-Let him prove to his own satisfaction, that they are capable of ever being solved by the human mind.-I say, let him prove these things to his own satisfaction; and then let him state with simplicity the evidence which has satisfied his mind, and I have no doubt it will satisfy mine. But until this is done, I insist on excluding all those questions intirely. This, I trust, is fair and honourable dealing towards truth, and towards the friends of truth. The analysis of religious truth, like the analysis of natural truth, is a work of patience, circumspection, and time. He that detects a mistake does much, he that adds one ascertained truth to the common stock does more. But let us not be hasty in system-making. Let us lay up the few truths we are sure of properly labelled and described Poma carpent nepotes. The reader may recollect, that in page 23, I reserved a subject for future discussion; I now add, that I reserve some others in relation to the covenant of works; as they will come up under more favourable circum |