'' 6 
 
 ADAM AND CHRIST 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION 
 
 STATED AND EXPLAINED, 
 
 , /BY 
 
 E. C. WINES, D. D. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 
 
 NO. 265 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
A SERMON 
 
 PREACHED BEFORE THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK, 
 
 OCTOBER 16, 1854, 
 
 AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE SYNOD. 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by 
 
 A. W. MITCHELL, M. D., 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania. 
 
ADAM AND CHEIST 
 
 Rom. V. 12—19. 
 
 *' "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for 
 that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the 
 world : but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Never- 
 theless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them 
 that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans- 
 gression, who is the figure, of him that was to come. But 
 not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through 
 the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of 
 God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, 
 hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that 
 sinned, so is the gift : for the judgment was by one to con- 
 demnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justi- 
 fication. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one ; 
 much more they which receive abundance of grace and of 
 the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus 
 Christ.) Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came 
 npon all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness 
 of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
 life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made 
 sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made 
 righteous. 
 
 The general subject of this passage 
 is the fall and recovery of man. A lead- 
 
 C3) 
 
4 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 ing purpose of the apostle is to magnify 
 the grace of God, and exalt our con- 
 ception of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
 The method by which he seeks to 
 compass this design, is by instituting a 
 comparison between the evils resulting 
 from the apostasy of Adam and the 
 benefits flowing from the mediation of 
 Christ. 
 
 No other passage in the whole Bible 
 has gained an equal celebrity with this 
 in the annals of interpretation. It has 
 generally been thought not a little ob- 
 scure, and its interpretation encompas- 
 sed with difiiculties. But the chief 
 difficulty appears to me to lie, not so 
 much in the obscurity of the writer, as 
 in the philosophy of the interpreter. 
 The struggle is between the pride of 
 human reason on the one side and the 
 humbling doctrines of the gospel on the 
 other ; between human wisdom and di- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 vine wisdom ; between metaphysics and 
 the word of God. Philosophy disdains 
 to bow the head or bend the knee be- 
 fore the cross of Jesus. The sublime 
 mystery of the redemption is a scandal 
 to the swelling arrogancy of human 
 merit. The doctrine of a representa- 
 tive goodness, an imputed righteousness, 
 is equally offensive to the wisdom of 
 the Greek and the prejudice of the Jew, 
 to the pride of philosophic scepticism, 
 and the self-sufficiency of learned and 
 unlearned Pharisaism. 
 
 Here lies the difficulty in the inter- 
 pretation of this passage. Philosophers 
 and philosophizing theologians, with 
 whatever subtleties of logic and refine- 
 ments of learning, have sought to bring 
 the teachings of the Holy Spirit into 
 harmony with their speculative systems. 
 The doctrine of Paul must be made to 
 harmonize with the dogmas of human 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 science. A compromise must be effected 
 between human merit and divine grace, 
 between the wisdom of man in the ut- 
 terances of philosophy and the wisdom 
 of God in the utterances of revelation. 
 The attempt to accomplish this object 
 has opened the floodgates of metaphys- 
 ics, giving full scope to the ingenuity 
 of the most acute and subtle dialecti- 
 cians. The multitude of interpreters 
 have come to the study of this passage 
 with some preconceived theory to de- 
 fend. Hence they have sought, not so 
 much to draw their opinions from it, as 
 to make it yield a sense, which har- 
 monizes with opinions previously exist- 
 ing in their own minds. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the obscurity 
 and perplexity thus thrown around the 
 passage, the great truths taught in it 
 seem to me to be set forth with remarka- 
 ble perspicuity. It contains the state- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 7 
 
 ment of a general principle, together 
 with a two-fold application of it. The 
 principle is that of substitution or repre- 
 sentation as an element in God's moral 
 government. The first application of 
 the principle is in the person of Adam 
 under the covenant of works. The 
 second application of it is in the per- 
 son of the Lord Jesus Christ under the 
 covenant of grace. 
 
 This analysis of the passage suggests 
 the order of thought proper to be pur- 
 sued in our study of it. The three 
 leading truths here taught are : ■ 
 
 1st. That a public and representa- 
 tive character belongs to both Adam 
 and Christ. 
 
 2nd. That our entire nature was 
 tried, miscarried, and fell under con- 
 demnation in Adam. 
 
 3d. That the same nature that sin- 
 ned was admitted to a new probation in 
 
8 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 Christ, which issued favourably, so that 
 sinners who believe in him are recover- 
 ed by his righteousness. 
 
 It is proposed, by the help of the di- 
 vine Spirit, to open, establish, and illus- 
 trate these doctrines, in the ensuing 
 discourse. 
 
 I. My first proposition is : A public 
 and representative character attaches 
 both to Adam and to Christ; herein 
 the former was a type of the latter, the 
 relation which Adam bore to his pos- 
 terity being the same as that which 
 Christ bears to believers. 
 
 The representative relation of Adam 
 is evident from the whole drift of the 
 apostle's argument. He reasons thus 
 in V. 12 — 14 : Sin was introduced into 
 the world by one man. Death is the 
 fruit of sin. All die, because all are 
 sinners. But in what manner have all 
 sinned ? Multitudes have never sinned 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 9 
 
 after the similitude of Adam's trans- 
 gression. They have never violated, 
 personally, either the law of nature or 
 the law of revelation. This is the case 
 of all who die in infancy. But sin is 
 not imputed where there is no law. 
 The very essence of sin lies in the 
 transgression of law. Hence infants 
 are sinners, since they die as well as 
 adults. Hence, too, they are sinners 
 by the transgression of some law. But 
 there is no law, which infants can have 
 broken, except the law given to Adam; 
 and there is no sin, of which infants 
 can have been guilty, but their sin in 
 Adam. Consequently, Adam must have 
 borne to his posterity the relation of 
 representative ; and what he did in that 
 character, they did in him. In other 
 words, and more- concisely — where 
 there is death, there is sin ; where 
 there is sin, there is law ; where pen- 
 
10 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 alty is inflicted, there must have been 
 a violation of law; where those are 
 punished who have no personal sin, the 
 sin of another must be imputed to 
 them ; and where the sin of one is im- 
 puted to another, the one must be the 
 representative of the other. The reas- 
 oning is from death to sin ; from sin to 
 law ; from the infliction of penalty to 
 the violation of law ; from the punish- 
 ment of the personally innocent to im- 
 putation ; and from imputation to re- 
 presentation. 
 
 Moral arguments, do not, I think, 
 admit of a nearer approach to mathe- 
 matical demonstration than this. The 
 only thing assumed, in this paraphrase 
 of the apostle's argument, is, that by 
 the persons designated as those who 
 " have not sinned after the similitude 
 of Adam's transgression," infants are 
 meant. It is difficult to imagine any 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 11 
 
 other rational meaning of the phrase. 
 Accordingly, by the persons who thus 
 sinned, Warburton, Whitby, Bloom- 
 field, and other Arminian as well as 
 Calvinistic interpreters, understand — 
 to borrow the very words of the learned 
 prelate first named — '' those who died 
 before they came to the knowledge of 
 good and evil, viz. : infants and idiots." 
 
 The doctrine of Adam's representa- 
 tive relation is also unequivocally 
 taught in vs. 15 — 19. Here, by almost 
 every conceivable form of expression, 
 it is affirmed that a condemnatory sen- 
 tence was passed upon all men on ac- 
 count of one man ; nay, on account of 
 a single ofience of that one man. What 
 rational interpretation can be given to 
 such a proposition, but that the many 
 acted in the gne on the principle of re- 
 presentation ? 
 
 The language of the 19 th verse places 
 
12 ADAM AND CHRIST/ 
 
 this point in the clearest possible light, 
 surrounding it with a blaze of demon- 
 stration. Literally translated, it reads 
 thus: "As by the disobedience of the 
 one the many were constituted sinners, 
 so by the obedience of the one the many 
 shall be constituted righteous." What 
 form of words could more plainly de- 
 clare the doctrine of representation ? 
 It is, indeed, alleged by theologians who 
 deny this doctrine, that the first propo- 
 sition here means no more than that 
 Adam's sin was the occasion of other 
 men's becoming sinners. They aver 
 that all the apostle teaches is, that, 
 somehow, as a consequence of Adam's 
 sin, all men become depraved, and that 
 the sole ground of their condemnation 
 is this inherent corruption of nature, 
 and the personal sins flowing from it. 
 
 But see the violence which this in- 
 terpretation does to the apostle's Ian- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 13 
 
 guage, as also the dangerous heresy 
 which it involves. The passage con- 
 sists of two propositions. The mould 
 into which these two propositions are 
 cast, is the same. The structure of 
 both is the same. The leading terms 
 in both are the same. Of course the 
 principle of interpretation applicable to 
 both must be the same ; and the sense 
 of both must be commensurate. That 
 is to say, the same words, in the same 
 relations, and having the same gram- 
 matical construction, must have a like 
 interpretation. What follows? Clearly 
 this : that, if the first proposition mean 
 simply that, as a consequence of Adam's 
 disobedience, men become personally 
 sinful, and this personal sinfulness is 
 the alone ground of their condemna- 
 tion, then the second proposition must 
 mean, that, as a consequence of the obe- 
 dience of Christ, believers become per- 
 
14 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 son ally holy, and this personal holi- 
 ness is the alone ground of their jus- 
 tification. And what is this but a 
 subversion of the gospel, and a repub- 
 lication of the covenant of works? 
 
 Ha\dng proved the representative 
 relation of Adam to his natural chil- 
 dren, let us inquire whether Christ 
 stood in a similar relation to his spirit- 
 ual children. 
 
 A main purpose of the apostle in the 
 passage before us, is to establish a simi- 
 litude between Adam and Christ. The 
 same reasoning, therefore, is applicable 
 to both. The same terms are, again 
 a.n.d again, employed in reference to 
 both. In V. 14, the former is expressly 
 declared to be a type of the latter. It 
 follows that, if the one is a representa- 
 tive, so is the other. The representar 
 tive character of Adam draws after it 
 the representative character of Christ. 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 15 
 
 Nothing can be plainer from scripture, 
 than that Adam and Christ sustained 
 peculiar relations to the human family ; 
 insomuch that they are called by the 
 apostle '^ the first man" and " the second 
 man," as if the whole human race were 
 either annihilated in their presence, or 
 •absorbed in their persons. 
 
 The whole doctrine of atonement, 
 which constitutes the sum of the gos- 
 pel, is built upon the representative 
 character and relation of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. This divine person is 
 everywhere spoken of in the scriptures 
 as a sacrifice for sin. The sacrifices of 
 the law were but shadows of this only 
 real sacrifice for sin, deriving all their 
 efficacy from their relation to it. But 
 all the expiatory sacrifices of the law 
 were of a vicarious and representative 
 import. Into every such sacrifice there 
 entered three leading ideas, viz.: the 
 
16 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 symbolical transfer of the offerer's sins 
 to the sacrificial victim, the symbolical 
 pollution of the victim consequent upon 
 this translation of guilt, and the re- 
 demption of the transgressor by the 
 substitution of the victim in his place. 
 This view of the nature and import 
 of the Jewish sacrifices is held by all 
 orthodox Christian divines, and by the 
 most illustrious of the Hebrew doctors. 
 The very heathens themselves — doubt- 
 less deriving their ideas from that ori- 
 ginal light of revelation, which, though 
 clouded and dispersed, still continued 
 to emit some rays of its primeval splen- 
 dor — held to the notion of a substitu- 
 tion of the sacrificial victim to suffer 
 death in place of the transgressor. Such, 
 as we learn from classic authors of un- 
 doubted authority, was the belief of the 
 Egyptians, the Greeks, the Eomans, 
 the Gauls, and other nations of anti- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 17 
 
 quity. A remarkable passage to this 
 effect occurs in Ovid, where the poet 
 represents the several parts of the vic- 
 titn as equivalents for the corresponding 
 parts of the offerer. It was an express 
 dogma of the Druidical theology, that, 
 unless the life of men were given for 
 the life of men, the immortal gods 
 could not be appeased. 
 
 But what ideas on this subject do 
 we find in the writers of the New Tes- 
 tament ? The forerunner of Messiah, 
 in announcing his advent, said, "Be- 
 hold the Lamb of God, that taketh 
 away the sin of the world." These 
 words could not fail to call up in a Jew- 
 ish mind all those ideas, which entered 
 into the general notion of sacrifice — 
 substitution, transfer of guilt, vicarious 
 suffering, atonement, and redemption. 
 Thus was the Lord Jesus, in the first 
 proclamation of his personal presence 
 2* 
 
18 ADAM AND CHRIST.' 
 
 upon earth, presented to the church as 
 the surety and representative of his 
 people. And faithfully did the inspired 
 penmen of the New Testament, as it 
 would be easy to show by a detail of 
 passages, reproduce, amplify, and en- 
 force this consolatory conception of the 
 relation of our adorable Kedeemer to 
 the church which he purchased with 
 his blood. 
 
 II. My second proposition is this: 
 No mere private individual was tried 
 in Eden ; the probation, though in the 
 person of Adam, was of the nature that 
 God had made ; and, as a consequence 
 of the miscarriage of the trial, the 
 whole race of mankind fell under con- 
 demnation, became obnoxious to pun- 
 ishment, and are actually subjected to 
 penal evils, on account of their sin in 
 him. 
 
 There are two principles, which must 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 19 
 
 be assumed as the basis of our reason- 
 ings on this subject. The first is, that 
 death is a penal evil ; the second, that 
 the infliction of a penalty implies the 
 violation of a law. These principles, 
 besides being very much of the nature 
 of axioms, are plainly taught in the 
 Bible. Both reason and revelation, 
 therefore, bear concurrent testimony to 
 their truth. 
 
 The doctrine of our church, on the 
 point under consideration, is thus set 
 forth in the Larger Catechism : "The 
 covenant being made with Adam, as a 
 public character, not for himself only, 
 but for his posterity, all mankind, de- 
 scending from him by ordinary genera- 
 tion, sinned in him, and fell with him, 
 in that first transgression." (A. to 22 Q.) 
 
 This cardinal doctrine of revelation, 
 the doctrine of the representative char- 
 acter of lidam, and of our sin and fall 
 
20 • ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 in him, is clearly q^nd impressively 
 taught in our text. It is a striking 
 fact, that within the compass of eight 
 verses, the doctrine is, either explicitly 
 or implicitly, set forth in no less than 
 ten distinct propositions. Here they 
 are: 1. "By one man sin entered into 
 the world, and death by sin," v. 12. 
 2. "Death passed upon all men, for 
 that all have sinned," v. 12. 3. " Sin is 
 not imputed, where there is no law; 
 nevertheless, death reigned from A(iam 
 to Moses, even over them that had not 
 sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
 transgression," vs. 13, 14. 4. "Adam 
 was a type of Christ," v. 14. 5. 
 " Through the offence of one many are 
 dead," v. 15. 6. " The [sentence] was 
 by one that sinned," v. 16. 7. " The 
 judgment was by one [offence] to con- 
 demnation," V. 16. 8. "By one man's 
 offence death reigned by one," v. 17, 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 21 
 
 9. "By the ojQfence of one, judgment 
 came upon all men to condemnation," 
 V. 18. 10. "By one man's disobedi- 
 ence, many were made sinners," v. 19. 
 
 Such is the copiousness with which 
 the spirit of inspiration has here ex- 
 hibited this fundamental truth of our 
 holy religion. There is no human for- 
 mulary that teaches the probation of 
 the race in Adam, the apostasy of the 
 race in Adam, the condemnation of the 
 race in Adam, and the punishment of 
 the race on account of their sin in x\dam, 
 with anything like the clearness and ful- 
 ness of this inspired exhibition of the 
 truth. 
 
 One of two things is certain : Either 
 we were tried in Adam, or we were 
 not. If we were not tried in him, then 
 each individual of the race is placed on 
 trial for himself — the covenant of 
 works is still in force — we have re- 
 
22 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 nounced the cross, and are gone back 
 
 to Sinai. If we were tried in Adam, 
 
 then, as the issue of our miscarriage in 
 
 him, we have become obnoxious to all 
 ... ' 
 
 the penal evils, in which our principal 
 
 or representative himself was involved. 
 
 The sum is, that God, in his supreme 
 and sovereign wisdom, gave his law to 
 Adam in Paradise, not only as a rule 
 of obedience, but also as a covenant of 
 life ; that Adam, in this covenant, acted 
 for himself and his posterity; that he 
 was not a private but a public person, 
 sustaining the persons of all mankind ; 
 and that, during the pendency of the 
 trial, he had in him, not merely as a 
 natural root and common father, but 
 also as a federal head and legal repre- 
 sentative, the whole race of men, who 
 ^' sinned in him, and fell with him, in 
 his first transgression." 
 
 Although the doctrine of the impu- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 23 
 
 tation of Adam's first sin to us lies, as 
 Dr. Owen has said, "in the very founda- 
 tion of all wherein we have to do with 
 God," yet it is a doctrine denied and 
 opposed by many in our day. These 
 persons object to it chiefly on the 
 ground, that such a constitution of 
 things is a breach of justice. But is it 
 so ? Is the principle of representation, 
 the principle that one person may act 
 in and by another, a violation of jus- 
 tice ? This is so far from being true, 
 that human society could not exist, nor 
 the affairs of life move on, except un- 
 der the operation of the representative 
 principle. Guardianships, trusteeships, 
 commercial agencies, constitutional le- 
 gislation, and international negotiations, 
 are all based upon this principle. 
 
 Innumerable illustrations might be 
 adduced. I must content myself with 
 one or two. 
 
24. 'ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 The President of Mexico, aggrieved 
 by the annexation of Texas to this 
 country, refused to receive a minister 
 plenipotentiary from the United States. 
 We construed his refusal to be the re- 
 fusal of the Mexican nation. Was not 
 such a construction in accordance with 
 the universal conceptions of men ? 
 
 A British subject a few years ago 
 burned an American steamer on the 
 waters of the St. Lawrence. The whole 
 country was in a blaze. It was a ques- 
 tion of war with a powerful empire. 
 But that question turned upon another, 
 viz. : whether the man acted in a pri- 
 vate or public relation ; that is to say, 
 whether the deed was the act of the indi- 
 vidual, or the act of the nation in him. 
 
 Our own government affords a good 
 illustration of the representative prin- 
 ciple. We are in the constant habit of 
 speaking of the American people as 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 25 
 
 assembled in Congress, and as making 
 their own laws. But how are the peo- 
 ple assembled in Congress ? and how 
 do they make their own laws ? No 
 otherwise than in and by their repre- 
 sentatives. It is a point, deserving 
 special attention here, that the whole 
 body of the people are bound by the 
 acts of their representatives — not only 
 voters, who bind themselves, but non- 
 voters — women, children, and aliens — 
 who have no voice in the choice of re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the principle 
 of representation is founded in nature 
 and necessity. It pervades all the ope- 
 rations of society. It meets a response 
 in every human heart. It has its seat 
 in the very depths of our mental and 
 moral constitution. It is familiar to 
 the thought and the practice of our 
 universal humanity. And, (a consider- 
 3 
 
26 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 ation investing it with supreme dignity 
 and importance,) it would seem to be an 
 essential condition of a scheme of re- 
 demption for fallen men. For, upon 
 what other principle than that of re- 
 presentation are vicarious obedience and 
 suffering possible? Upon what other 
 principle can the righteousness of Christ 
 become the righteousness of believing 
 sinners ? 
 
 To the perverse disputer, who, in the 
 insolent pride of human reason, would 
 prescribe to the Almighty the way in 
 which he should conduct his creatures 
 to happiness, we might reply by apply- 
 ing his own argument to the ordinary 
 course of events. For he who impugns 
 the doctrine of representation and im- 
 putation does, in the same breath, im- 
 peach the justice of providence. If a 
 father pursues a career of crime, do not 
 his children^ at every turn, meet the 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 27' 
 
 evil consequences of his conduct? It 
 avails nothing here to say, that these 
 providential evils are the effect of an 
 established cgnstitution. That consti- 
 tution itself is the effect of a decree of 
 God ; and every one of its operations is 
 as much the appointment of the al- 
 mighty Framer, as if it were the direct 
 result of his creative will. 
 
 After all, they who reject the idea 
 of imputed guilt, do but escape from 
 one difficulty, to rush into another of 
 still greater magnitude. That all man- 
 kind are involved in the consequences 
 of Adam's sin, is a fact too clearly re- 
 vealed in the Bible, and too evident 
 from universal experience, to be dis- 
 puted. The doctrine of representation 
 accounts for this fact upon a principle 
 congenial to our nature, familiar to our 
 conceptions, and incorporated into our 
 daily practice. Any other view of the 
 
28 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 matter involves the absurdity of an 
 effect without a cause. To say that 
 the evil happens according to the estab- 
 lished order of things, and in the way 
 of natural sequence, is but to push the 
 difficulty a little further off. It is not 
 to meet it, but to sidle past it. It is 
 not to remove it, but to bury it beneath 
 unmeaning verbiage. Who ordained 
 that constitution of things, by means 
 of which the evil comes ? Did not 
 God ? And are not all its sequences as 
 properly his acts, as if they were inde- 
 pendent operations, and wholly discon- 
 nected from second causes? 
 
 But the deepest darkness, on any 
 theory of moral administration other 
 than that of imputation, gathers around 
 God's providence towards infants. If 
 it is unjust to impute sin to them, and 
 on that ground to subject them to suf- 
 fering, what shall we say of the justice 
 
- ADAM AND CHRIST. 29 
 
 of subjecting them to the very same 
 suffering on no ground at all, and in 
 disregard and despite of a spotless in- 
 nocence ? Believers in imputation hold 
 that infants are treated as sinners, be- 
 cause they are sinners ; not indeed by 
 personal disobedience, but judicially 
 constituted such, by having the disobe- 
 dience of their federal representative 
 imputed to them — charged to their ac- 
 count. Disbelievers in imputation hold 
 that infants are treated as sinners, 
 though they are as free from guilt as 
 Adam at the instant of his creation. 
 Which of these theories is most dis- 
 honouring to God I leave to your own 
 candour to judge. 
 
 III. My third proposition is : By the 
 abounding grace of God, a new proba- 
 tion has been admitted in the person 
 of his incarnate Son ; this second trial 
 issued favourably, the illustrious pro- 
 3* 
 
30 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 Vjationer having fulfilled all righteous- 
 ness; and, as a consequence, believing 
 sinners are redeemed and saved by his 
 merits. 
 
 On the criminal revolt and apostasy 
 of man, his Creator might in justice 
 have exacted the penalty denounced 
 against transgression. He might have 
 proceeded at once to vindicate the ma- 
 jesty and authority of his law. No 
 attribute of the divine nature, no utter- 
 ance of the divine voice, no principle 
 of the divine equity, demanded even a 
 reprieve of the sentence against man ; 
 much less, any effectual interposition 
 in his behalf on the part of Deity. 
 Such interposition, therefore, would be 
 an act of sovereign grace. One neces- 
 sity there was in the case, and only 
 one, viz. : that if God interposed at all, 
 it should be in a manner consistent with 
 the infinite perfections of his nature. 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 31 
 
 The fact of God's gracious interpo- 
 sition for man's deliverance from death 
 and restoration to life, is manifest and 
 acknowledged. We are now to inquire 
 into the manner and extent of it. 
 
 In V. 14, the apostle affirms, that 
 Adam was a type of Christ. With 
 wonderful exactness do the type and 
 the antitype agree together. The com- 
 parison consists of five couplets ; Adam 
 and Christ, sin and righteousness, sin- 
 ners and righteous persons, condemna- 
 tion and justification, death and life. 
 Placing the ^ve terms on each side of 
 the comparison together, the relation 
 may be denoted thus: Adam, sin, sin- 
 ners, condemnation, death — Christ, 
 righteousness, righteous persons, justi- 
 fication, life. As Adam by his sin 
 made sinners of all his natural poste- 
 rity, involving them in condemnation 
 and death, so Christ by his righteous- 
 
32 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 ness constitutes righteous all who be- 
 lieve in him, procuring for them justifi- 
 cation unto life. 
 
 How exact the correspondence ! Is 
 Adam the author of sin ? Christ is the 
 author of righteousness. Is Adam the 
 cause of other men's becoming sinners ? 
 Christ is the cause of other men's be- 
 coming righteous. Is the sin of Adam 
 the ground of condemnation? The 
 righteousness of Christ is the ground 
 of justification. Does the condemna- 
 tion through Adam bring death ? The 
 justification through Christ brings life. 
 Are the many judicially constituted sin- 
 ners by the disobedience of the one ? 
 The many are judicially constituted 
 righteous by the obedience of the other. 
 Does the principle of representation ob- 
 tain under the one economy ? So does 
 it under the other. Is imputation the 
 mode whereby this principle exerts its 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 33 
 
 force in the one case ? So is it in the 
 other. Is the first covenant the minis- 
 try of death to all men descending from 
 Adam by ordinary generation? The 
 second covenant is the ministry of life 
 to all men who believe in Christ. Was 
 Adam the federal head of his natural 
 children ? Christ is the federal head of 
 his spiritual children. 
 
 In all these respects the similitude is 
 admirable. In the principle of their 
 respective economies, and in their re- 
 lation, in the one case to the apostasy, 
 in the other to the recovery, the corres- 
 pondence is exact to a tittle. The 
 mode of the apostasy is the mode of the 
 recovery. The federal headship of the 
 first Adam, and the federal headship 
 of the second Adam, are counterparts 
 of each other. The first Adam sus- 
 tained the persons of all who were 
 federally in him, i. e.y of his natural pes- 
 
34 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 terity; and the second Adam sustained 
 the persons of all who were federally 
 in him, i. e., of elect sinners. God ac- 
 counts as done by the represented what 
 was done by the first representative; 
 and he equally accounts as done by the 
 represented what was done by the sec- 
 ond representative. Sin and death 
 were conveyed by the one to all his 
 natural seed ; righteousness and life are 
 conveyed by the other to all his spirit- 
 ual seed. The demerit of Adam is im- 
 puted to us to condemnation ; the merit 
 of Christ is imputed to us to justifica- 
 tion. 
 
 Thus it appears that the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, in the redemption, is the repre- 
 sentative of his people, and that the 
 method by which he redeems them is 
 that of substitution — the substitution 
 of his obedience for their obedience, the 
 substitution of his death for their death, 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 35 
 
 the substitution of himself for them, 
 " the just for the unj ust." Substitution 
 as a means of atonement for sin and re- 
 conciliation to God, as we have seen 
 under the first head, was a doctrine 
 held by the entire ancient world, as 
 well Gentile as Jewish. This doctrine 
 of a vicarious obedience and a vicarious 
 suffering is the cardinal doctrine of reve- 
 lation. It pervades the whole Bible. 
 It gives tone and colouring to all its 
 teachings. It is the keynote to both its 
 Testaments. It is the sum and essence 
 of a religious system suited to the wants 
 of sinners. Hence the Christianity 
 which denies it is no Christianity. At 
 best, it is but the mangled and distorted 
 form, the meagre skeleton of religion, 
 as religion is revealed in God's word. 
 As a religious system, it scarcely makes 
 an approach to what the deepest con- 
 sciousness of our moral nature, in its 
 
36 ADAM AND CHRIST. . 
 
 fallen state, imperatively demands, as a 
 condition of spiritual peace. 
 
 All this is abundantly taught in our 
 text, as also in many other scriptures, 
 which there is not time now to cite. 
 
 It remains to inquire into the extent 
 of Christ's satisfaction. It is import- 
 ant, in this inquiry, to bear in mind, 
 that the comparison is between the re- 
 sults of the apostasy, and the results 
 of the recovery. Keeping this in me- 
 mory, let us bring together, in one view, 
 all the parts of the passage bearing 
 upon the point in question. I will pre- 
 sent them in a more literal version than 
 that contained in the common transla- 
 tion, a version whose verbal exactness 
 will aid us in understanding the mind 
 of the Spirit. ^^If by the offence of 
 the one the many died, much more the 
 grace of God, and the gift by the grace 
 of the one man, Jesus Christ, hath 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 37 
 
 abounded unto the many." "As by 
 one offence sentence came upon all men 
 to condemnation, so also by one right- 
 eousness the free gift came upon all men 
 to justification of life." " As by the dis- 
 obedience of the one man the many 
 were made sinners, so by the obedience 
 of the one man the many shall be made 
 righteous." The main difference be- 
 tween this translation and the common 
 one consists in the retention of the ar- 
 ticle, as it stands in the Greek, by which 
 a definite sense is obtained, instead of a 
 somewhat indefinite one. On the seve- 
 ral propositions of the apostle, as ren- 
 dered above, I observe, first, that when, 
 in speaking of a multitude, the persons 
 composing it are distinguished as the 
 one and the many, the many, in anti- 
 thesis to the one, must be equivalent to 
 all. Secondly, the many, of whom con- 
 demnation is predicated, are, obviously, 
 4 
 
38 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 all who were in Adam, when he was a 
 public character. Thirdly, it is but a 
 fair corollary from this, that the many, 
 of whom justification is affirmed, must, 
 in like manner, mean, not all mankind, 
 but -all who are in Christ, all to whom 
 his federal headship extends. 
 
 It is true, that in both cases the terms 
 employed are unlimited ; yet in both 
 there is a limitation. All men are not 
 brought into a state of condemnation 
 by the sin of Adam — not the man 
 Christ Jesus; and all men are not 
 brought into a state of justification by 
 the righteousness of the second Adam 
 — not unbelievers. The condemned 
 through Adam, and the justified through 
 Christ cannot be co-extensive ; for such 
 a doctrine would lead to blank univer- 
 salism, and overthrow the plainest truth 
 in all the Bible. Two consequences, 
 abhorrent alike to reason and Scripture, 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 39 
 
 would be involved in such an interpre- 
 tation ; first, the Lord Jesus Christ 
 would have been born under condemn- 
 ation ; and, secondly, the salvation of 
 the w^hole human race w^ould be not 
 only possible, but certain. What the 
 apostle teaches, and all that he teaches, 
 is, that as on account of the sin of 
 Adam, all connected with him by ordi- 
 nary generation are condemned, so on 
 account of the righteousness of Christ, 
 all connected with him by faith are jus- 
 tified. 
 
 The passage, therefore, affords no 
 support to the doctrine of indefinite 
 atonement, or universal redemption. On- 
 the contrary, so far as it bears upon the 
 point at all, it is opposed to that theory. 
 It does not, perhaps, decide the question, 
 but it fairly opens it. Let us, therefore, 
 briefly interrogate both reason and Scrip- 
 ture on this point. 
 
40 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 It is safe to reason from the effect 
 produced by a designing agent to the 
 purpose of such agent. Corn is grown 
 in a certain field ; from this it is certain 
 that the cultivator purposed to raise 
 corn there. A father has given a lib- 
 eral education to one of his sons, and 
 withheld it from the rest ; this makes 
 clear his purpose to that effect. In re- 
 gard to human agents and their actions 
 we reason in this manner with confi- 
 dence. Why should we hesitate to ap- 
 ply the same method to the divine 
 doings ? We ought to feel the greater 
 confidence in such reasoning when ap- 
 plied to the supreme agent, since his 
 wisdom is omniscient, and cannot be 
 baffled, since his })ower is infinite, and 
 cannot be defeated. How, then, is it 
 possible to deny the force of such argu- 
 ments, or the justness of such inferences, 
 as these following ? A part of the an- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 41 
 
 gels maintained their allegiance to God ; 
 therefore it was the purpose of God that 
 they should stand firm. Another part 
 apostatized ; therefore it was the pur- 
 pose of God that they should fall. Adam 
 transgressed the covenant of his God, 
 and involved himself and his posterity 
 in guilt and condemnation ; therefore it 
 was the divine purpose that this should 
 be. A part of the human race are saved 
 by Christ, and another part are not; 
 such, therefore, was the divine purpose 
 concerning them. Wisdom never . acts 
 without a purpose, and eternal Avisdom 
 can frame no new purposes. To say 
 that God acts without a purpose is to 
 deprive him of wisdom ; to say that any 
 new purpose can arise in his mind is to 
 impute to him mutability. As surely, 
 therefore, as God saves a part of the 
 human family, and leaves the rest to 
 
 perish, so surely did he purpose to do it. 
 4* 
 
42 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 The certainty of the action determines 
 the certainty of the purpose, and the 
 extent of the action determines the ex- 
 tent of the purpose ; while the immuta- 
 bility of God involves the eternity of 
 the purpose. 
 
 It is objected to this view, that it 
 converts men into machines, and makes 
 God the author of sin ; and the modern 
 objector, like the cavillers of Paul's day, 
 exultingly asks, " Why doth he yet find 
 fault ? for who hath' resisted his will T 
 The point of the objection is, that a di- 
 vine purpose and a free human agency 
 are incompatible ; so incompatible that, 
 if such purpose have respect to a sinful 
 action, the human agent is free from 
 blame, and God is the author of the sin. 
 
 Is this so ? It was the purpose of 
 God that Pharaoh should not let his 
 people go, till he had shown his won- 
 ders in Egypt ; that Sennacherib should 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 43 
 
 invade the territory of Israel for the 
 punishment of its inhabitants ; and that 
 Jewish scribes and priests should cru- 
 cify his Son. Did these divine purposes 
 destroy the free agency of the actors, or 
 make God the author of their sin ? No 
 n^an will dare utter such a blasphemy. 
 How, then, does a divine purpose that 
 some angels should fall, destroy their 
 free agency in rebelling, or make God 
 the author of their sin ? How does a 
 divine purpose that man should apos- 
 tatize, destroy his freedom iu aposta- 
 tizing, and make God the author of his 
 sin ? How does a divine purpose not to 
 save a part of the human race, interfere 
 wdth their freedom in sinning, or make 
 God the author of their damnation ? If 
 a divine purpose does not clash with free 
 agency in one instance, it need not 
 clash with it in any. If it is consistent 
 with man's freedom in one event, it is 
 
44 ADAxM AND CHRIST. 
 
 consistent with his freedom in all events. 
 But a divine purpose and free agency, a 
 divine purpose and a sinful free agency, 
 did meet in the obstinacy of Pharaoh, 
 in the ambition of Sennacherib, and in 
 the malignity of the murderers of God's 
 incarnate Son. This none can deny, 
 without denying the plainest Scripture 
 testimonies. Why, then, may not a di- 
 vine purpose and a sinful free agency 
 have met in the rebellion of angels and 
 the apostasy of man ? Why may they 
 not meet in the final condemnation and 
 ruin of men ? If God must necessarily 
 be the author of sin by decreeing these 
 events, then, by a like necessity, he 
 must be the author of Pharaoh's sin in 
 refusing to let the people go, of Sen- 
 nacherib's sin in his wars against Je- 
 rusalem, and of the Jews' sin in crucify- 
 ing the Lord of glory, because he de- 
 creed those events. No difference can 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 45 
 
 be shown in the principle of these 
 several cases. " God decreed the fall 
 of man, therefore he is the author of the 
 sin, by which that event was effected,'* 
 and " God decreed the death of Christ, 
 therefore he is the author of the sin, 
 by which that event was effected," are 
 one and the same argument. If the 
 conclusion is logical in the one case, it 
 is logical in the other, and if it is illogical 
 in the one, it is illogical in the other. 
 If we feel that it would be blasphemy 
 when stated in reference to the death 
 of Christ, we must own that it would be 
 an equal blasphemy when uttered in re- 
 ference to the fall of Adam. It is true, 
 that we know the reasons which moved 
 God to decree the death of his Son, 
 while the reasons which moved him 
 to decree the fall of angels, the apos- 
 tasy of man, and the restriction of sal- 
 vation to a part of mankind, are un- 
 
46 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 known to us. Doubtless there are rea- 
 sons for these decrees, as wise in 
 themselves and as honourable to God, 
 as for the decree respecting the death 
 of his Son; and, if we knew them, 
 we should see the divine glory shining 
 as radiantly in the former as in the lat- 
 ter. The unfathomableness of the di- 
 vine decrees is no argument against 
 their existence, their wisdom, or their 
 goodness. To suppose that the counsels 
 of the Most High are not good and glori- 
 ous, because we cannot fathom the 
 reasons on which they rest, is to make 
 man's folly superior to God's wisdom. It 
 is to exalt human is^norance to sit in' 
 judgment on the divine sovereignty. 
 
 The teaching of reason, then, on this 
 subject is, that the original design of the 
 death of Christ must have had the same 
 extent, which the ultimate actual ap- 
 pUcation of it to saving purposes shall 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 47 
 
 have. If all men shall finally be saved, 
 then the design of Christ's death em- 
 braced all men. If only a part shall be 
 savedj then, since God cannot be disap- 
 pointed of his purpose, his design in the 
 death of his Son must have been from 
 the beginning limited to a part. 
 
 But what is the voice of Scripture on 
 this subject? What does it teach re- 
 specting the divine purpose in the death 
 of Christ ? The general answer is, " It 
 teaches that it w^as a purpose of redeem- 
 ing mercy." But whom did that pur- 
 pose embrace? A number without 
 number of sinners of mankind. Still 
 the purpose has its limits — limits given 
 to it by sovereign wisdom. It is con- 
 fined to a part of mankind. God, in 
 his sovereignty, passed by angels, and 
 redeemed men; and, in the same sover- 
 eignt}^, he passed by a part of men, 
 and redeemed the rest. The exceed- 
 
48 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 ing. great multitude that no man can 
 number, who shall be found on the 
 right hand of the Judge at tlie last day, 
 are spoken of in Scripture as Christ's 
 sheep, Jno. x. 11 ; as his elect, Mark 
 xiii. 27 ; as the church which he loved 
 and gave himself for, Eph. v. 25 ; as 
 those who were given him by the 
 Father, Jno. xvii. 24 ; as predestinated 
 by the Father's good pleasure to the 
 adoption of children, Eph. i. 5 ; as or- 
 dained to eternal life. Acts xiii. 48 ; as 
 chosen in Christ before the foundation 
 of the world, Eph. i. 4 ; as elect accord- 
 ing to the foreknowledge of God unto 
 obedience, 1 Pet. i. 2 ; as saved accord- 
 ing to God's own purpose and grace 
 given them in Christ Jesus before the 
 world began, 2 Tim. i. 9 ; as chosen 
 from the beginning to salvation, 2 
 Thess. ii. 13 ; as an election of grace, 
 Rom. xi. 7 J as appointed to salvation, 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 49 
 
 1 Thess. V. 9 ; and as predestinated to 
 be conformed to the image of his Son, 
 and called according to his purpose, 
 Eom. viii. 28, 29. 
 
 These Scriptures are very plain. He 
 that runs may read. Ingenuity cannot 
 torture them into any other meaning 
 than that God had a determinate pur- 
 pose to accomplish by the mission of 
 his Son. They are clear and explicit 
 to the point, that redemption had its 
 origin in that eternal agreement be- 
 tween the persons of the Godhead, com- 
 monly called the covenant of grace, on 
 which the whole dispensation of mercy 
 to mankind is based. An elect people 
 was, in this convention of peace, given 
 to the Son as the reward of his media^ 
 torial work. The whole scope and in- 
 tent of that divine covenant transaction 
 will be fulfilled to a tittle. " The Lord's 
 portion is his people," and sooner shall 
 5 
 
50 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 heaven and earth pass away, than a 
 ]>article of that inheritance shall be lost. 
 The plan of infinite wisdom and love, 
 conceived in the fathomless depths of 
 eternity, was complete in all its parts, 
 and fixed in all its results, stretchino^ 
 away over all ages, all climes, and all 
 peoples, the perfect and immutable 
 counsel of Jehovah. 
 
 A consideration of the efficacy of 
 Christ's satisfaction evinces its limita- 
 tion to a part of mankind. This efficacy, 
 as Witsius has said, is twofold. It re- 
 gards both Christ and the elect. By his 
 satisfaction, he obtained for himself a 
 right to the elect, who, by the promise 
 of the Father, are made sure to him, as 
 his "inheritance and possession." This 
 right cannot be vacated : " Other sheep 
 I have, which are not of this fold ; them 
 also I must bring, and they shall hear 
 my voice," John. x. 16. Christ's sheep 
 are his property. He has a right to 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 51 
 
 them, which he will assert. But Christ, 
 bv his satisfaction, also obtained for the 
 elect a right to eternal life, to be applied 
 to them in effectual calling, regenera- 
 tion, sanctification, and glorification. 
 See Matt. xxvi. 28, Gal. i. 4, Rom. viii. 
 29, 30, Tit. ii. 14, Eph. v. 25—27. 
 These scriptures show that the satisfac- 
 tion of Christ procured, not a bare pos- 
 sibility of salvation, but a certain salva- 
 tion for all in behalf of whom it was made. 
 The same truth appears from those 
 passages of the word of God, which 
 represent the work of Christ as a re- 
 demption. Now a redemption is a buy- 
 ing out of captivity. The effect of it 
 is liberty, and not a mere possibility of 
 liberty. Christ is a true Redeemer. He 
 restores to freedom every miserable cap- 
 tive to sin and Satan, whose ransom he 
 has paid. If it be said, that redemption 
 is for all who will accept it, I reply, 
 That is true, but none ever accept itj 
 
52 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 save those who are "made willing" by 
 a gracious exercise of divine power. 
 And this grace is granted only to the 
 elect. " The election hath obtained it, 
 and the rest were blinded." 
 
 The nature of Christ's suretyship 
 proves the limitation of his mediatorial 
 work. He is called " the surety of a 
 better covenant." He is a surety, not 
 on God's part to us, of which there could 
 be no need ; but on our part to God. 
 A surety is one who engages for another. 
 There can be no suretyship, where there 
 is no engagement ; and there can be 
 no engagement, w^here there is no cer- 
 tainty. It would be a contradiction in 
 terms to speak of suretyship, and yet, 
 at the same time, disconnect it from the 
 persons, in whose behalf it is assumed. 
 Christ therefore, if he be a surety at 
 all, which the scriptures plainly affirm, 
 is the surety of persons known and 
 selected beforehand. He took the law 
 
ADAM AXD CHRIST 53 
 
 place of a chosen people, paid their 
 debts, satisfied the claims of justice, and 
 redeemed them from death and hell. 
 He is, then, the surety of the saved only; 
 he can be the surety of none else. Are 
 all men saved,, or only some? If some 
 only are saved, then he is the surety of 
 some, but not of all ; he died to redeem 
 some, but not all. If he is the surety 
 of all, then he satisfied for all, and all 
 will be saved. For he himself testifies, 
 that of all whom the Father had griven 
 him, of all who were embraced within 
 the saving purpose of his death, he 
 should lose nothing. 
 
 Again, particular election and par- 
 ticular redemption are doctrines insepa- 
 rably connected. The former involves 
 the latter, as the cause involves the 
 effect. He who denies the one must 
 deny the other. Election by the Father 
 and redemption by the Son are of the 
 same breadth, and embrace the same 
 
 5^ 
 
54 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 persons. All the chosen were redeemed, 
 and all the redeemed were chosen. 
 
 This is consonant to reason, for why 
 should the Son redeem those whom 
 the Father had not chosen to salva- 
 tion ? What were the purpose of such 
 redemption? Surely, the will of the 
 Father and the will of the Son concern- 
 ing man's redemption were one. They 
 were of accord in this desio^n. Yet 
 if the Father elected only a part, and 
 the Son redeemed all, the Son under- 
 took more than the Father did. The 
 purpose of the one had a greater com- 
 pass than the purpose of the other, and 
 there was a conflict of wills in them, 
 which it were both absurd and impious 
 to affirm. 
 
 But what reason suggests, scripture 
 confirms. In his intercessory prayer, 
 our Saviour, referring to himself, says : 
 *' Thou hast given him power over all 
 flesh, that he should give eternal life 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 55 
 
 to as many as thou hast given him." 
 John. xvii. 2. Here those whom the 
 Son crowns with eternal life, and those 
 who were given to him by the Father 
 in the decree of election, are represented 
 as the same persons. Election and 
 redemption answer to each other, as 
 face answers to face in a glass. Still 
 more explicit is the declaration of the 
 apostle in Eph. i. 4 — 7: "He hath 
 chosen us in him, .... in whom 
 we have redemption, through his blood." 
 What can be plainer than this? The 
 persons redeemed by the blood of Christ 
 are the same as those who were chosen 
 in him. Election measures redemp- 
 tion, as one bushel measures another. 
 They are of the same extent. They 
 relate to the same persons. They re- 
 late to all such, and to no others. This 
 truth, from the passages cited, is as 
 clear as a sunbeam ; and it draws after 
 it the doctrine, that Christ died to re- 
 
56 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 deem, not all mankind, but a chosen 
 number only. 
 
 The doctrine is, that God provided 
 a remedy for sinners, which was no* 
 to be applied to all sinners. Does any 
 one charge, that this doctrine makes 
 God partial in his treatment of his 
 creatures ? The same charge lies, with 
 equal force, against the doctrine, that 
 he has elected some to salvation, and 
 passed by others. Nay, it presses, 
 w^ith as heavy a weight, upon the 
 certain and admitted fact, that God 
 elected to redeem fallen men, and not 
 fallen ano^els. To redeem men and not 
 angels is as contrary to the righteous- 
 ness of God, as to redeem some men 
 and not others. Some are scandalized 
 by the doctrine of particular redemp- 
 tion, who yet hold to the doctrine of 
 particular election, though the dis- 
 tinction between these doctrines is 
 clearly a distinction without a differ- 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 57 
 
 ence. Others reject both the doctrines, 
 who, nevertheless, are constrained to 
 own, because they cannot deny, that 
 God, in the dispensation of his grace, 
 discriminated between apostate angels 
 and apostate men. Let the former 
 defend the election of particular men 
 to the exclusion of other men against 
 the charge of unrighteous partiality 
 in God, and the latter the election 
 of m^n to the exclusion of angels 
 against the same charge, and every 
 word they utter, pertinent to the issue, 
 will be of equal force in defending 
 the doctrine of particular redemption. 
 When it is a question of bestowing 
 benefits, on persons, all of whom are 
 equally unworthy of them, to discrim- 
 inate and select some to the exclusion 
 of others is simply a prerogative of sov- 
 reignty. So God himself represents 
 the matter: ''Nay but, O man, who 
 art thou that repliest against God ? 
 
58 ADAM Am) CHRIST. 
 
 Shall the thing formed say to him that 
 formed it, Why hast thou made me 
 thus ? Hath not the potter power over 
 the clay, of the same lump to make 
 one vessel unto honour, and another 
 unto dishonour ?" Rom. ix. 20, 21. 
 Here God, in amazing condescension, 
 stoops to vindicate the equity of his 
 ways in selecting the objects of his 
 favour. It has been w^ell said, that 
 the objection of partiality springs from 
 the pride and envy of man. In effect, 
 our Saviour hiaiself tells us so, when 
 he says, " Is it not lawful for me to do 
 wha-t I will with my own? Is thine 
 eye evil, because I am good ?" How 
 i:inequally does God bestow the bless- 
 ings of his providence ! Some are rich, 
 others poor; some are well, others 
 sick ; some are clothed in purple, 
 others in rags ; some are lords, others 
 slaves. Yet no one dares to impugn 
 
ADAM AlH) CHRIST. 59 
 
 the righteousness of God on the ground 
 of these unequal distributions of his 
 providence, since all feel that they 
 suffer less than their sin deserves, and 
 enjoy more than their goodness merits. 
 And vi'hy should it be deemed less 
 impious to arraign the justice of God 
 on the ground of the unequal communi- 
 cations of his grace ? 
 
 But while the Scriptures teach that 
 the Lord Jesus Christ died to redeem a 
 chosen and peculiar people, they do also 
 teach that " the death of Christ is a 
 most perfect sacrifice and satisfactioA 
 for sins; of infinite value and price; 
 abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins 
 of the vifhole world." The cross is ac- 
 cessible to all, and available for the re- 
 covery of all, who will repair to it. 
 There is not a sinner of mankind, to 
 whom the offer of eternal life is not un- 
 feignedly made on the ground of Christ's 
 
60 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 atoning mediation. If any perish, it is 
 not for want of an adequate remedy, 
 but through their own voluntary rejec- 
 tion of the remedy. There is no bar 
 to salvation, but the want of a will to 
 accept it on the terms proposed in the 
 gospel. It is true, that the want of a 
 will in a moral agent is a want of power 
 in the fullest sense ; but it is not such 
 a want of power as will justify the sin- 
 ner in unbelief. If we are so in love 
 with sin that we cannot repent, so in 
 love with self that we cannot accept a 
 vicarious righteousness, so in love with 
 the world that we cannot love God, such 
 an inability, though invincible by any 
 might of ours, cannot justify impeni- 
 tence and unbelief The more a man 
 is inclined to sin and disinclined to holi- 
 ness, the worse he is. Hence inability 
 of will is no excuse for sin. Yet this 
 is the inability of the sinner. If he 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 61 
 
 were willing to believe, he would be 
 able to believe ; and be is unable, be- 
 cause he is unwilling. The love of sin 
 is what disables him. 
 
 Notwithstanding the sufficiency of 
 the gospel provision, and the sincerity 
 of the gospel call, the natural state of 
 men's hearts — their inability of will — 
 presents an obstacle in the way of their 
 salvation, which nothing can overcome 
 but the power of the Divine Spirit. 
 Here the election of grace comes in. 
 God has provided a remedy in the atone- 
 ment of Christ, adequate to the removal 
 of all the evils occasioned by the fall 
 of Adam. On the ground of this atone- 
 ment, he has made an unlimited offer 
 of saving mercy to the whole human 
 family. But all spurn the offer. All 
 continue in sin. All will perish in un- 
 belief, unless the grace of God prevent 
 it. Foreseeing this, God determined to 
 
62 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 put forth a gracious influence ujDon the 
 will of many sinners, and constrain 
 them to accept the offer of salvation, so 
 making sure to his Son, as the reward 
 of his sufferings, a "willing people." 
 But the provision of the gospel, being 
 sufficient for all, and suited to the w^ants 
 of all, was made accessible to all. All 
 are invited to share in it, and nothing 
 hinders, but inability of will, which is 
 so far from extenuating, that it aggra- 
 vates their fault. Those, therefore, who 
 thus wilfully refuse the proffered grace, 
 God determined to pass by and leave to 
 perish in their neglect. They were not 
 embraced wdtliin the saving purpose of 
 Christ's death. Nor is any wrong done 
 them in this procedure. They are not 
 shut out of heaven by election, but by 
 unbelief Election includes its own ; it 
 excludes nobody. 
 
 If, then, the question be asked, " For 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 63 
 
 whom did Christ die ?" — no categorical 
 answer can be given. We cannot say 
 absolutely and unqualifiedly, that he 
 died for all sinners 3 for then all would 
 be saved. Neither can we say abso- 
 lutely and unqualifiedly, that he died 
 only for elect sinners; for then the offer 
 of salvation could not be unfeignedly 
 made to all men. The answer there- 
 fore, will vary according to the differ- 
 ent relations, in which Christ's death is 
 viewed. If we consider his death sim- 
 ply as a satisfaction for sin and with- 
 out reference to the particular persons 
 to be saved by it, the answer will be, to 
 borrow the words of Dr. Mason, "He 
 died for sinners as sinners." But if we 
 consider his death with reference to the 
 saving design of it, the answer will be, 
 "he died for the elect." In other 
 words, since there is a fulness of merit in 
 the atonement sufficient to save any 
 
64 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 number of sinners, there is no impossi- 
 bility in the way of the salvation of all 
 mankind, except an impossibility re- 
 sulting from the state of their own 
 minds ; and the purpose of God not to 
 remove that impossibility is simply a 
 purpose to withhold from them an aid 
 which he is under no obligation to be- 
 stow ; an aid, the bestowment of which 
 is never represented in Scripture as 
 necessary to the consistency of invita- 
 tions to believe and be saved. 
 
 Both these views I find in the Bible. 
 In conformity with the one, the in- 
 spired teachers of the primitive church 
 addressed the gospel call to all without 
 discrimination, fearlessly proclaiming 
 that " the grace of God which bringeth 
 salvation hath appeared unto all men." 
 In conformity with the other, they 
 uniformly ascribed the faith of the 
 saved to a divine operation, and their 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 65 
 
 redemption to a divine decree. ^' As 
 many as were ordained to eternal life 
 believed." Discriminating grace is the 
 fountain of salvation. 
 
 To some these views appear inconsist- 
 ent with each other. There is a diffi- 
 culty without doubt. But it is a diffi- 
 culty which belongs to the general 
 subject of the divine sovereignty and 
 human agency. Nay, almost all the 
 cardinal doctrines of the Bible are be- 
 set by difficulties quite as great. They 
 all have two aspects, which it is diffi- 
 cult for the mind to bring into one 
 view, just as it is difficult for the eye to 
 bring into one view the two opposite 
 sides of an object. The eternal neces- 
 sary existence of the Infinite One com- 
 bined with spontaneity of will, the 
 unity and plurality of the Godhead, 
 and the union of divinity and humanity 
 
 in the same person — these doctrines, 
 6* 
 
66 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 received by the whole orthodox Chris- 
 tian world, to my mind involve greater 
 difficulties and reach to a profounder 
 depth of incomprehensibility, than the 
 doctrine of an atonement limited in its 
 application to an elect people by the 
 sovereign decree of God, and yet, by 
 reason of its infinite value, made the 
 ground of an unlimited call to repent- 
 ance and faith, and of an unlimited 
 promise of eternal life on condition of 
 compliance with that call. Certainly, 
 these two aspects of the atonement are 
 no more irreconcilable the one with 
 the other, than the doctrine of the di- 
 vine sovereignty in regeneration is ir- 
 reconcilable with the doctrine of human 
 responsibility in using the means of 
 grace. Yet, while it is the pleasure of 
 God to employ human means in his 
 kingdom, as readily might the soft 
 strains of an aBolian harp allay the rising 
 
I 
 ADAM AND CHRIST. 67 
 
 gtorm or calm the surging ocean, as the 
 power of man quicken a. soul dead in 
 trespasses and sins. At any rate, if 
 these two doctrines — the doctrine of an 
 atonement unlimited in its nature be- 
 cause of its infinite value, and the doc- 
 trine of an atonement limited in its ap- 
 plication because of the election of 
 grace — were a thousandfold more in- 
 comprehensible than they are, still, 
 since I see them both written, as with 
 a sunbeam, on the pages of God's word, 
 I heartily accept them both, as I do 
 many other mysteries in the divine na- 
 ture and government, inexplicable to 
 my narrow, weak, and purblind intel- 
 lect ; and I await, with adoring patience 
 and hope, the illuminations of eternity. 
 In conclusion, fathers and brethren, 
 let us gratefully adore the riches of the 
 divine wisdom and goodness. What a 
 sublime history do we read in the dis- 
 
68 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 pensations of God's grace ! The Crea- 
 tor stoops to enter into covenant with 
 the creature. The natural father is 
 made the federal head of the human 
 race. God promises life to Adam and 
 his posterity on condition of obedience 
 to a just and reasonable law. Death is 
 threatened as the penalty of disobedi- 
 ence. The trial fails. Despair, dark 
 as midnight, settles down upon our 
 guilty race. The Ruler of the univervse 
 is not a man that he should lie. He 
 cannot -say one thing and do another. 
 Law and justice, under his government, 
 must have their course. The terrors 
 of that law fill us with amazement, the 
 thunders of that justice overwhelm us 
 with horror. The judge has prepared 
 his glittering sword, and his hand takes 
 hold on judgment. But in the midst 
 of our consternation, the sweet voice of 
 mercy sounds • in our ears — " Deliver 
 
ADAM AND CHRIST. 69 
 
 from going down to the pit; I have 
 found a ransom." The Son of God de- 
 scends from the heights of his glory. 
 He comes to stand between us and 
 justice. Law and justice still roll on ; 
 they cannot do otherwise ; but they move 
 in a new direction. Upon the head of 
 the Surety, to whom our sin is imputed^ 
 they fall. This divine Person enters the 
 arena, a solitary combatant against the 
 powers of darkness. The flames burn 
 fiercely around him. His humanity is 
 consumed. He dies as a malefactor. 
 But he conquers death by dying. In 
 proof of which, he bursts asunder the 
 iron bars of his prison-house, and comes 
 forth victorious, leading captivity cap- 
 tive. Accompanied by the angelic hosts, 
 and laden with the spoils of his van- 
 quished enemy, he cleaves the obedient 
 air, and enters heaven in triumph, 
 taking possession of its joys as the re- 
 
70 ADAM AND CHRIST. 
 
 presentative of those who put their trust 
 in him. 
 
 Thus a door of hope is opened for us 
 in the valley of weeping. Repine not, 
 then, presumptuous man, at the sover- 
 eignty of God, nor dare to arraign his 
 justice in the constitution of the old 
 covenant. Rather hasten to secure the 
 deliverance made possible to you under 
 the new. If the first Adam failed, the 
 second Adam can never fail. If all 
 was made gloomy by our fall in the 
 one, all is made radiant by our recov- 
 ery in the other. Through this mighty 
 Restorer, it is in the power of every 
 one of you, my beloved hearers, to rise 
 from the death and shame and misery 
 of sin, to a life that shall know no end, 
 to a glory that shall sufier no eclipse, 
 to a bliss that shall dread no forfeit- 
 ure 
 
 The new covenant in Christ can 
 
ADAM AMD CHRIST. 71 
 
 never fail. It is ordered in all things 
 and sure. It is founded on the rock of 
 eternal equity and truth. It cannot 
 fail on the part of the Father, for he 
 "rests in his love, and changes not." 
 It cannot fail on the part of the Son, 
 for he has brought in an " everlasting 
 righteousness." It cannot fail on the 
 part of the Spirit, for he dwells in our 
 hearts as the pledge of an eternal re- 
 demption, and the earnest of an eternal 
 inheritance. The God of the covenant 
 — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — can 
 never fail us nor forsake us. Not Ga- 
 briel on his throne, nor Paul with his 
 crown, is more secure than the feeblest 
 saint, who struggles on and struggles 
 ever, feeding a trembling hope of heaven 
 with sighs and tears and inward groan- 
 ings of the spirit. Amen. 
 
 THE END.