To sum up in one sentence all the contrasts just stated: so far from regarding Adam as having been subjected to a number of divine laws-as having been able to obey these-as having been endowed naturally with a principle of generosity-as having been spiritual

-as having been able to do good—as having had a positive promise of eternal life made to him-and as having been naturally immortal ;-my decided conviction is, that only one law of the nature of a prohibition was imposed on him-that the purpose of this was to make manifest his utter inability to comply with divine law that his nature was essentially selfish-that he was destitute of spirituality—that his only virtue consisted in abstinence from transgression-that the only reward conditionally promised to him was exemption from punishment-and that naturally he was not, nor as a mere creature could have been, immortal.

These contrasted statements being pondered on and understood, it will be apparent, that my sentiments, in regard to the life forfeited by Adam, differ toto coelo from those of the popular divines. They, overlooking the fact, that Adam even at the best was merely a creature* and a type,t by means of the qualities which while in his primitive state they ascribe to him, raise him to a level with, and clothe him with the attributes of, Jesus the Creator and Anti-type.‡ According to them, Adam naturally was a pure, holy, and

By representing Adam as having been by nature positively and perfectly righteous, spiritual, and immortal. Righteousness, spirituality, and immortality, are the attributes, not of Adam, but of Adam's Lord.

heavenly-minded being-capable of enjoying spiritual communion with God-filled with the most intense love to the laws of his Maker, and able to keep them -and possessed of a happiness which is to us abso→ lutely inconceivable. According to the writer of these pages, founding his views not on ideal human systems but on the infallible word of God, Adam was an intelligent being endowed with a selfish earthly mind— was capable of evil, but for a while abstained from the commission of it-had in him naturally no principle upon which the Creator could operate, except that of fear-was placed at his creation in circumstances of great external comfort, but was totally destitute of the capacity of enjoying spiritual communion with God*and depended for the continuance of his original state,

Adam's paradisiacal state has been regarded as the perfection of human nature, and the fall regretted as an irreparable loss to mankind. It was certainly the highest any child of Adam can aspire to, when his ambition is indulged as far as it can carry his wishes. Adam indeed had every thing that could make such a creature happy; all that the earth could afford agreeable, laid to his hand; perfect innocence, unalloyed by any thing that could mar his inward peace; and the friendship of his Maker every day ascertained by fresh instances. But with all the advantages he enjoyed, many and great as the were; yet, were it possible for any of his posterity to be restored to the same situation, he would find himself greatly short of that perfect happiness which he expected to find there; as will appear very plainly from the circumstances in which Adam was placed.— The communion and intercourses of friendship with the Creator, were all managed in a sensible manner; I mean, as men converse with one another. This some may reckon a singular advantage, and a high privilege.-But we must find ourselves obliged to think otherwise when we reflect, that Adam neither had, nor could have, in that way, any views of the glory of God, but such as were veiled and darkened by sensible appearances.-He was made for living in the state he was placed in, and for possessing all the happiness a man can enjoy in a present world. But it does not appear he was made for any higher station, or more perfect way of living; and we have no intimation of any reason he had to hope for it. Riccaltoun's works, vol II, pages 58-60.

on his abstinence from the violation of a single trifling divine prohibition. According to the popular divines, Adam naturally was possessed of the most astonishing knowledge of God's character and laws; and naturally had no tendency whatever to the commission of evil. Boston's language is: "that Adam had a perfect knowledge of God's law, and of his duty accordingly:" -"that he had naturally an exquisite knowledge of the works of God-and of their natures:"-" that he was made right (according to the nature of God, whose work is perfect,) without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul:-and that he had no corruption in his will, no bent or inclination to evil." According to the views of the writer of these pages, on the contrary, Adam was, at his creation, merely a grown infant,-destitute of all knowledge, because destitute of all experience,-and dependent on immediate divine inspiration for every kind of instruction, as well as for the entire guidance of his conduct. Besides, in his very nature, as earthly, fleshly, and selfish, he carried about with him from his origin a principle of corruption and evil, latent for a time, but ready to manifest itself on the first suitable occasion: and, so far from loving God and being able and disposed to keep His law, he loved himself supremely by the very constitution of his nature; and was ready to break the only law given him by the Creator, whenever the observation of it appeared likely to interfere with the dictates of self love. Undoubtedly, at his creation, he had been pronounced to be very good,

and was in a certain sense perfect: but language like this, when applied to Adam's original estate, is, from the result, clearly seen to have imported no more, than that, like every thing else, he was perfectly adapted to the purpose for which he had been summoned into existence. In a word, according to the popular divines, Adam's original state of righteousness, was something marvellously great and inconceivable! According to the writer or these pages, his original state of righteousness was merely his not having immediately committed transgression-was his mere temporary abstinence from evil: and his righteousness, as the righteousness of a mere creature, was intended as a foil to stand contrasted with, and to be one means of instructing us in the value of, the truly great, divine, and inconceivable righteousness of Jesus the Creator.

Will the reader have the goodness to excuse me, for the length of detail into which I have gone in reference to the topic just treated of? I assure him that I am not exaggerating their importance when I say, that correct views of the difference between Adam and Christ, and of the typical relationship in which the former stands to the latter, are essential, not merely in the present controversy, but to the understanding of every doctrine contained in the word of God.

Clear, however, as it appears to me, and must do to all who are content to take a plain scriptural and impartial view of the matter, that Adam, as having been only a creature, could by means of transgression

forfeit no more than creature righteousness and creature life,-yet, strange to tell! there have not been awanting men dignified with the title of theologians who have fancied, and have even written treatises to prove, that, besides the loss of natural life both internal and external, Adam was threatened with and actually incurred spiritual and eternal death! This being the case, I have resolved to enter still more minutely into the present subject; in order that, not merely in the way of direct statement, but also by contrast with the reasonings of antagonists, the simplicity, correctness, and accordance with the inspired volume, of the sentiments respecting the life forfeited by Adam for which I am contending, may, to the entire satisfaction of my readers, be made to appear.

Without at present enquiring, what is the precise meaning attached to the phraseology spiritual and eternal death by those who employ it? suffice it to observe, that, as the arguments by which the doctrine of this death having been incurred by Adam is commonly supported are of a negative rather than a positive kind, they may with propriety be stated in the form of so many objections to the view which I have shewn to be suggested by the inspired narrative itself.

In the first place, it may be objected, that "the literal translation of Gen, ii. 17, in the day thou eatest thereof DYING THOU SHALT DIE,* has an emphasis which is far from being exhausted, on the supposition of the forfeiture of what was natural having been its only import." In answer to this cavil, for it is nothing

* See the margin.