Questions on Chapter 10.

their representative. But if we deny that Adam was the representative of his posterity in the eye of the law, the law could never treat them as sinners. But we see death passing “upon all,” as the apostle says, “for that all have sinned.” Here, observe, the argument is that all upon whom death passes have sinned; but death passes upon many (infants) who have not sinned personally, or “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression;” then they must have sinned in Adam, and if so, he must have been, in the eye of the law, their federal head.

It has already been proved that death is the penalty of the law, or, in other words, “the wages of sin.” If so, to suppose that death merely results indirectly upon the posterity of Adam as a natural consequence, and not as a direct penalty, must be an erroneous view of the subject, unsustained by reason or Scripture. Indeed, to deny that Adam in the first transgression was a public representative of his race, would involve us at once in a train of inextricable difficulties. How could we reconcile it with the justice of God, that all mankind should be involved with Adam in the curse, unless they were represented by him in the transgression? Will the justice of God punish the perfectly innocent? Can the penalty of a holy law fall with all its weight upon those who, in no sense of the word, are viewed in the light of transgressors?

We think it must be obvious, from what has been said, that the only scriptural and consistent view of the subject is, to consider Adam in his state of trial as the federal head of all mankind. In him they sinned; in him they fell; and with him they suffer the penalty of a violated law. All difficulty which this arrangement might present, in view of the mercy of God, vanishes as the remedial scheme opens to view.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 10.

QUESTION 1. From what does the importance of a right understanding of this subject appear?

2. What is the Pelagian and Socinian view of the import of the penalty of the Adamic law?

3. What is the second opinion specified?

4. What is the third theory, mentioned as advocated by Dr. Taylor?

5. What is the fourth theory mentioned?

6. What is said to be the scriptural view of the subject?

7. What is the first argument presented?

8. Upon what is the second argument founded?

9. To what is the appeal made in the third place?

10. What scriptures are quoted, and how are they shown to prove the point?

11. What different views have been entertained with regard to the relation sustained by Adam to his posterity?

12. What is the correct view of this subject?

13. By what proofs is it sustained?

14. In what difficulty would a denial of this doctrine involve us?

15. In what way may all the seeming difficulties connected with the true doctrine upon this subject be removed?