He is also perfectly right in asserting that created objects must necessarily be finite in number; and that the number of Adam's descendants are definite, the number to be affected by his covenant definitely fixed by God; and also that the number to be affected by the covenant of grace, is definitely fixed by the same God. And, therefore, since there is not only no contradiction, but no indistinctness of idea on these subjects, we may proceed to another subject, for our object is not controversy, but investigation.

SECTION X.

Of the Individualising System.

It was with some difficulty that I could comprehend what Mr. M'C. could mean, by saying individuals were not included in either of the covenants-that men were not individually included; and by calling such a conception the individualising scheme. But on comparing several passages together; and finding him very precise in proving that Adam's sin was not such, that being cut up into so many parcels, as that each would suffice to damn an individual, there would be nothing more left ; and no more posterity of course born to him but that the whole of his guilt descends entire to each individual; that the guilt which damns one man, is

sufficient for the condemnation of every individual of the human family; and would be sufficient to condemn the whole human family, from the first man to the last, though every unit in its millions were multiplied by as many millions more. And when, on the other hand, I found him proving that the sins of every elect individual were not thrown into a common heap, and imputed to Christ Jesus; and that Jesus Christ did not make such atonement, that being divided into parcels, each parcel would suffice to wash out the sins of an elect soul; that he did not work out such a righteousness, as being divided into so many parcels, each parcel would, on imputation, save an elect soul, and then he could save no more. But, that on the contrary, it would require the same atonement and righteousness to save one man, as to save all men; that the righteousness of Christ Jesus goes whole and entire to every believer; and that the same righteousness is sufficient to save all the millions of the human family, and would be adequate to save the whole, were they as many more. I say on observing all this; and this is the exact amount of all he has said on the subject, I perceived his meaning. And I did regret that infelicity of human speech, which occasions that what from one man's mouth is accepted as a compliment, should from another man's mouth cause a quarrel. For I will venture to assert, that Mr. M'Chord never did see a man mad enough, and never will see a man mad enough, in the Associate Reformed Church, or out of it, to believe in any such individualisation. Nor is such the doctrine of any man in the Associate Reformed Church, or in the United States, or in the world: notwithstanding that Mr. M'C. so frequently looking his brethren in the face, calls this "YOUR individualising

must answer for! What preacher ever offered the righteousness of Jesus to a sinner, as the ground of his hope, and did not offer the entire righteousness! Who ever told his hearers that when Christ's righteousness is divided by the number of the elect, the quotient resulting is the righteousness to which the believer must trust his soul, when the judge of all the earth unsheaths his flaming sword, and seats himself on the tribunal!

Why then should Mr. M'Chord call this your individualising scheme? Will he say it is the consequence of principles which you admit? I assert that even that would not render it ours. If the consequences of every opinion were charged on every man who holds it, I do not doubt that every error that ever was in the christian church might be charged on every man in it. But what we reject, what we abhor is not Divine justice will never call it ours-but controversial justice-why she is of another family.

ours.

So intirely is this system of individualisation a creature of Mr. M'C.'s own brain, that I do not recollect ever to have heard of it, or to have read of any thing like it. If ever it was mentioned before, it was mentioned as an absurdity.

Still it may be said, that this absurdity really belongs to our system, though it may not belong to our selves: The weakness of our heads has secured the innocence of our hearts; but verily our logic is in fault and that if we could only reason correctly, we

should be compelled either to swallow the conclusion, or give up the principle. Well then, let us close once more, and let us be cool.

1. We believe, and say, and are ready to prove, that God having created Adam, did enter into a covenant with him, promising to grant him, on a specified condition, life; and, on the transgression of that specified condition, threatening him with death: which covenant God intended should include every human person descending from Adam, but whether this intention was at that time declared, we say not, because we know not.

2. That after the formation of Eve, and her mar riage with Adam, and the pronunciation of the blessing of fruitfulness on them both, we presume (though we cannot prove the fact by so many words of scripture,) that Adam was informed by God, that the covenant extended not only to himself, but to Eve, and to every human person descending from them.

3. That God at that time had determined in his own mind, what, and how many human persons should descend from Adam and Eve; and at what time, and in what circumstances each should descend; and had determined that each of these persons, so soon as he should obtain personality, should have a personal interest in that covenant; so that if Adam should have kept that covenant, such person should be personally justified; and if Adam should have broken that covenant, such person should be personally condemned.

4. That since the future existence of these persons was decreed by Jehovah; and their future connection with Adam, and participation in his righteousness and its reward; or in his guilt, and its punishment; were also determined by the same immutable will; we can

say that Adam was their covenant head; that Adam was their representative.

And what is there in all this about dividing Adam's guilt into shreds according to the number of his posterity? We suppose that if he dies, they die and if they die as well as he, we presume, and we say, that they were as guilty as he. We do not want a Beccaria to instruct us that the Infinite Judge of all the From equa

earth proportions punishments to crimes. From lity of punishment, we infer equality of guilt.

But if any one will insist on making this a mathematical question, to mathematics let us go. And then we get the following ratio: Supposing (by hypothesis) that Adam and his descendants amount to a million, a very small calculation; but mathematicians know that the doctrine of ratios does not depend on the particular value of antecedents and consequents. We have the following proportion,

Adam's sin

As Adam's sin: Death: :

1,000,000

Death 1,000,000

That is, for readers who are not mathematicians ought to know something about this subject, each of the million in the covenant was guilty of one millionth part of a sin, and shall suffer the one millionth part of death. Reader, thou mayest pronounce this any thing but sense or argument.

But who is guilty of this nonsense? We assert that if one million of men (according to hypothesis) were