grief, her plea, which it were impossible to render more convincing by argument, or touching by eloquence. She looks to American benevolence as to that in which all her precious hopes are treasured up, and for their fulfilment nature itself will plead more strongly than we can, in every fe

male heart.

.

"Nor would the managers omit to say to those who control the public press, that almost omnipotent engine for moving human minds to action, that to them belongs the power of securing to the design of this Society, the amplest means for its speedy consummation. Let every Editor in the country feel himself responsible to make known throughout the limits of his influence, the views, operations, and success of the Society, and that which it has been attempting in weakness, will be done with power, that which private charity has so well commenced, be completed by the bounty of the states and the nation.

"In concluding this perhaps too protracted address, the Managers beg leave to say, that not less than one thousand einigrants are now seeking a passage to Liberia; that the colony is prepared to receive them, that funds only are wanting to enable the society to prosecute its enterprise on a large scale, and that all which can appeal to our interests, or encourage our hopes, or move our hearts to charity, now commends the cause of African colonization to the affection and li

REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

(Continued from p. 265.)

berality of our countrymen. Nor will they, the Managers are persuaded, remain insensible to the merits of this cause. Every where meet us the indications of its growing popularity. Justice and Compassion, Mercy and Charity, have gone forth in fellowship to plead for it, and the Managers trust in the great Author of all good to send forth his Spirit to their aid that Spirit, under whose divine illuminations and all-gracious but all-subduing energies, men of every country and condition shall finally rejoice in peace and love, sharers in unity of the same faith, and of the same hope of the great and common salvation. And if, from the thick gloom overshadowing Africa, light begins to break forth, let us look for brighter glory, and be lieve that he who made Joseph's captivity the precursor of his honour, and his usefulness, and the death of his own Son, at which nature trembled, the means of human redemption, will finally change the evils which have cursed Africa into blessings; that the slave trade and slavery, which have been to her a torrent of wrath, laying waste all her happiness and hopes, will end in a tide, deep, tranquil and refreshing, flowing forth to awake life and gladness in all her wildernesses and solitary places, and to make even her deserts to bud and blossom as the rose.

Agreeably to an intimation in our last number, we are now to combat the assertion contained in

By order of the Board.
R. R. GURLEY, Sec'ry."

the review, by the Christian Observer, of Mr. Scott's last volume of the history of the protestant reformation-that "He [Calvin] did not hold the doctrine of the impu terity." tation of Adam's sin to all his pos

In any inquiry, and especially in every controversy, it is of prime importance that the meaning of terms be clearly ascertained, and kept constantly in view. In the allegation which we controvert, the term imputation may be used with some variety of meaning, and requires to be definitely as certained, in its application to the subject before us. This we think can be done in no way so unobjectionable as to take the explanation of it-if such an explanation can be found-from some accurate writer, who has used it in treating professedly on the subject in discussion. Such a writer, we think none will deny, was the first president Edwards; and he gives his definition or understanding of this term, in the very first paragraph of his extended treatise on "Original Sin." We will quote the whole paragraph-" By original sin, as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate sinful depravity of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude, as to include not only the depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin; or, in other words, the liableness or exposedness of Adam's posterity, in the divine judgment, to partake of the punishment of that sin. So far as I know, most of those who have held one of these, have maintained the other; and most of those who have opposed one, have opposed the other: both are opposed by the author, [Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, England,] chiefly attended to in the following discourse, in his book against original sin: And it may perhaps ap pear in our future consideration of the subject, that they are closely connected, and that the arguments which prove the one establish the other, and that there are no more difficulties attending the allowing of the one than the other."

Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

We wish that every clause of this paragraph were well considered; and we shall have occasion to advert to it for more than a definition of the word imputation-"The imputation of Adam's first sin," is "in other words, the liableness or exposedness of Adam's posterity, in the divine judgment, to partake of the punishment of that sin." This is what Edwards understood, what Calvinistick writers have always understood, what we understand, and think we shall show that Calvin himself understood, by the imputation of Adam's first sin, to all his posterity. We add, that we truly believe that this, and this only, is what the Christian Observer means should be understood by the word imputation, in the sentence on which we remark: or if it is not, then we say, that we cannot tell, till we farther learn what his meaning is, whether we differ from him or not. The word first, indeed, is not in the Observer's assertion; and the word all, is not in Edwards' definition. But we think that no one will say, that this is a difference of any account in the present case: For we never heard of a Calvinist who said or thought, that any of the sins of Adam, after his fall-any sin but that first one by which he broke covenant with his God, was imputed to his posterity: And in like manner, we never heard of an individual who held that Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity; who did not hold that it was imputed to all of them-to one as much as to another.

Now, let us do what all logicians and fair reasoners allow may be done, and sometimes requires to be done-substitute the definition of a word for the word itself; and then the Observer's position will stand thus-"He [Calvin] did not hold the doctrine of the liableness or exposedness in the divine judg ment, of all the posterity of Adam, to partake of the punishment of 2 Q

his first sin." We repeat, that if this is not the meaning of the Observer, as we sincerely believe it is, we know of no controversy that we have with him: And if this is his meaning, then he denies that Calvin held, what we affirm that he did both hold and teach.

Let it be well noted, that as Edwards states, "when the doctrine of original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude as to include not only the depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin." We are satisfied that the Observer means to deny only the latter of these two constituent parts of original sin; because the depravity of nature, derived from Adam to all his posterity, is the very point which has distinguished the orthodox from Pelagians, from the days of Augustine to the present time; and none of the reformers was, or could be, more explicit on this point than Calvin. It is a point, moreover, clearly expressed in the Articles of the Church of England, and we doubt not is held by the Observer himself. Edwards adds, "So far as I know, most of those who have held one of these, [that is, the depravity of nature,] have maintained the other; [that is, the imputation of Adam's first sin,] and most of those who have opposed one, have opposed the other." Calvin is placed by the Observer among the few excep tions, who, according to Edwards, held one of these particulars, and yet did not hold the other-held the depravity of nature, but not the imputation of Adam's first sin. Had Edwards himself believed that such was the fact, we think he would have noticed it much more distinctly than by saying that "the most of those who have held the one have maintained the other." With Edwards, Calvin was the instar omnium of theologians; and if he had thought he was going to enter into a conflict

with Calvin, we should have heard more of it than is wrapped up in the general words, "most of those, who have opposed one have opposed the other." Yet we admit that Edwards was not infallible; although, in regard to such a fact as the one in question, we think it very improbable that he was either ignorant or in error. But we judge it worth remark, that Edwards, when he was planning to write his octavo volume of nearly 400 pages, took the same view of the subject, and pursued the same general train of argument, that Calvin had done two centuries before. Edwards says" It may perhaps appear in our future consideration of the subject, that they [the two points above noticed] are closely connected, and that the arguments which prove the one establish the other, and that there are no more difficulties attending the allowing of the one than the other." Calvin appears to have thought exactly as Edwards didthat the arguments which prove the one of the two points contemplated, establish the other; and he has accordingly treated them conjointly.

The scope and burden of Calvin's argument is, that the whole race of Adam were involved by his act in all that he brought upon himself. Did he break covenant with his God? They broke it too, by his act as their representative. Did he lose the divine image, and become totally corrupt? So did they-as was to be realized, and has in fact been realized, in all their generations, from the primitive apostacy to the present hour. Did he incur the penalty of the broken covenant-death temporal, spiritual and eternal? They incurred the same, and not one of them can be delivered from its infliction, but by a vital union with Christ the Redeemer the second Adam, who restores the ruins of the first. Such is the manifest

tenor of Calvin's argument, as will be apparent to any one who will read attentively the first five chapters of the second book of his Institutes. Thus, viewing Adam and his posterity as identified under the covenant of works, and subject alike to all the evil consequences of a violation of that covenant, Calvin is at no pains to keep up and mark the distinction between Adam's first sin, by which he fell from his rectitude, and the corruption of his whole nature, which ensued. He treats of both these together; and shows clearly that the whole human race were involved in both with their great covenant head. The imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, is introduced only incidentally; but in this manner it is introduced again and again, and in such language as we think cannot be mistaken.

There were several reasons why the corruption of our whole nature, (the consequence of the broken covenant) should form the principal, prominent, and direct topick of discussion in Calvin's system. In the first place, this is by far the most important part of the subject. It is the practical part; it is the part which leads individuals to a right view of their state and necessities; and which, by its presence or absence, will always give complexion and character to the whole of a

system of divinity. It is, in a word, fundamental, both in practical and theoretick theology. Again: Calvin, as already intimated, appears to have thought, as Edwards did, that the two particulars to which we have alluded, in the general doctrine of original sin, "are closely connected, and that the arguments which prove the one establish the other, and that there are no more difficulties attending the allowing of the one than the other." Once more: The Papists held the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's first sin-meaning

by imputation what Edwards says he meant-as fully as the Protestants did;* but in regard to the corruption of the nature of man, they did not hold it to be total, and believed that by the rite of baptism, its power was always removed, so as to insure salvation to the recipient. Calvin, therefore, did not find it necessary to argue, professedly and at length, a point which neither Papists nor Protestants questioned; but on the subject of hereditary depravity, which the Papists did not hold correctly, and which the Pelagians altogether denied, he laid out all the strength of his mighty mind.

Now, keeping in recollection what has been stated, that the main

* The second section, under the article "Original Sin," in the "Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent," is as follows "Whoever shall affirm that Adam's prevarication injured himself only, and not his posterity, and that he lost the purity from God, for himself only, and not also and righteousness which he had received for us; or that when he became polluted by disobedience, he transmitted to all mankind corporal death and punishment only, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul: let him be accursed. For he contradicts the apostle, who saith, 'By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.' Rom. v., 12.

"The quotations from Scripture occurring in the decrees, are taken from the Roman Catholic authorized version.”

We have taken the above translation

and note from "A Text-book of Popery, by J. M. Cramp," lately republished in

New York-a work which we recommend to those of our readers who wish to obtain a correct view of "the Theological Sysin his notes on the proceedings of the tem of Popery." The author of this work,

Tridentine Council on the subject of original sin, says " All agreed that eternal death is the punishment of the original transgression. All affirmed that baptism is the remedy, though some would have joined with it the merits of Christ, and some would have added faith. Infants dying unbaptized were variously disposed of The efficacy of the remedy was considered to be so great, that no sin remains, and that in the regenerate (i. e. the baptized,) there is nothing hateful to God.'

*

scope of Calvin's argument is to show that the fall of Adam entailed a total moral depravity on his offspring, and that their "liableness or exposedness in the divine judgment to partake of the punishment of his sin"—the sin by which he broke covenant with his God-is mentioned only incidentally-let us see if it is not mentioned unequivocally, in the following passages, which we quote from the title of the fourth chapter of the second book of the Institutes, and from the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th sections of the same chapter; to which we might add several others. We have carefully compared our quotations with the original Latin, and did intend to insert it at the bottom of the page; but we have, on the whole, judged this unnecessary, as we shail not give a translation of our own, but that of JOHN ALLEN, which was lauded, we think justly, by the Christian Observer, on its first publication, a few years since.

The title to which we have referred, stands thus in Allen's translation "The fall and defection of Adam the cause of the curse inflicted on all mankind, and of their degeneracy from their primitive condition. The doctrine of original sin."*

In this very title, which, it should be remembered,

* A small specimen of the character of Allen's translation may be seen in his ver

sion of this title. The original is as fol

lows-" Adæ lapsu et defectione totum humanum genus maledictioni fuisse addictum, et à prima origine degenerasse. Ubi de peccato originali." In his preface to his translation, he says-" He has aimed at a medium between severity and looseness, and endeavoured to follow the style of the original, as far as the respective idioms of the Latin and English would admit." So far as we have compared his translation with the original, we think he has been remarkably faithful to the sense of his author. We recollect that when the Christian Observer reviewed this translation, he remarked, that it contain ed some obscure passages; but that, on recurring to the original, he found the same obscurity there. We have observed the

The

was placed at the head of this chapter by Calvin himself, a marked distinction is made between "the curse inflicted on all mankind," and "their degeneracy from their primitive condition." fall and defection of Adam, are exhibited as the cause of both, but they are clearly exhibited as distinct particulars. This was the doctrine of Calvin, and it has been the doctrine of all real Calvinistsall who have most fully embraced his system-from the publication of his Institutes to the present time. Calvin believed, and his followers have believed, that with whatever difficulties the subject may be attended, they are not increased but diminished, by holding, that in the first sin of Adam all his posterity were involved; that they sinned in, or with him, as their covenant head and representative, and shared with him in the curse inflicted for breaking covenant with God; and that in consequence of this," they are conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity, and go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." All who hold the doctrine of innate depravity, connect it, in some way, with the fall of Adam. Is it easier then, to believe that without any covenant connexion with him, and without being at all involved in his first transgression, his posterity are, by an absolute appointment of God, all born in sin is this easier to believe, than that they sinned with their federal head and representative, and, as the consequence, share with him in the curse of a broken covenant, and with it, the corruption of their whole nature? We think that Edwards was very safe in saying "there are no more

same thing in two passages, on which we shall have occasion to remark. We have much wished, but wished in vain, to get a sight of Calvin's French edition of his Institutes, in hope that some obscurities of his Latin might vanish in the French, which was his vernacular language.