the mode that is usual to consumption of the Jungs in ordinary cases. It at tinies assumed the same flattering aspects by which it is generally accompanied; and feeling, on one occasion, au unusual degree of strength, he insisted upon taking the air in a carriage. On his return he felt himself completely exhausted. And he returned to his bed convinced that he was never again to leave it. Such was indeed the case. For the close of the subsequent week saw him expire. He, at the beginning of it, seemed to take farewell of the world; and he had but small concern respecting it from this period until the day of his departure. Remaining in the full possession of all his rational powers, he employed them in communing with his own heart, in meditation, and in prayer. He never complained of his sufferings, nor was a murmur of disquietude ever heard to escape his lips.

On the night immediately previous to his decease, he enjoyed a few hours of unusual ease and comfort. It was remarked to him that he had been very composed in body. To this he assented, and remarked, that "he was still more grateful that his mind was equally composed. His prospects," he said, "in view of immediate dissolution, were much more clear than at any former period. He felt his faith to be more lively, and although he yet desired more assurance, he had cast himself on a God in Christ, and he rested with confidence on his promises of forgiveness." These were among the last words which he spoke. His end now appeared to be rapidly approaching. The family were assembled around his bed. Dr. Wylie engaged in prayer, and commended his departing spirit to its Redeemer. He turned himself around, and giv ing a look of intelligence and recognition to those who were witnesses of the scene-as though assured of its destiny, his spirit willingly, and peacefully, and triumphantly, took its flight to the realms of eternal day.

He expired on the 15th day of August, 1828, about 2 o'clock, P. M. in the 23d year of his age. His remains were deposited in the burial place attached to the Reformed Presbyterian church in Philadelphia, where they now repose. It was a remarkable coincidence worthy of notice, that all his fellow students in the seminary, without exception, were present in the city, and accompanied him to the tomb; altho' they had been previously scattered abroad through the land, having returned to their own homes, on being employed as licentiates in the preaching of the gospel.

On hearing of his death, the presbytery of Pittsburgh recorded on their minutes the folJowing notice.

"With deep regret the presbytery have learned, that Mr. John Black, eldest son of Dr. Black, of Pittsburgh, and a licentiate under the care of the Reformed Presbytery of Pittsburgh, departed this life in Philadelphia, August 15, 1828. He graduated in the western university of Pennsylvania, in 1825, and for two years prosecuted with great approbation, his studies in the theological seminary of this church, under professor Wylie; and completed his studies under his much esteemed father Dr. Black. His trials for licensure were receiv ed with great approbation, and he was licensed to preach the everlasting gospel on the 22d

April, 1828. He was recommended to make a tour to the shores of the ocean, with a hope that his health, which had been rapidly declining, might be restored. He complied. But, alas! every exertion proved ineffectual. He reached Philadelphia, but was able to proceed no farther; and after lingering for a few months, he left the church militant to join with the heavenly choir in celebrating the praises of his dear Redeemer, in the studying of whose love he had great delight, and whose ordinances he esteemed greater riches than the gold of Ophir. His health never permitted him to preach after his licensure. He died much lamented by all who knew him, especi ally by those who were colleagues with him in his studies. In literature and piety he left few to equal him, as probationers for the holy ministry, but none to excel."

In concluding this memoir, which the writer feels to be exceedingly imperfect, he will not indulge in any reflections, but merely recall the attention to the outline of the portrait which he has been attempting to deline

ate.

In person, Mr. Black was about the middle stature, of a large frame, and exceedingly mus cular and active. His complexion was rather dark, and in his later years presented a sallowness of appearance indicative of a constitutional predisposition to disease.

His whole countenance was intellectual. The impress of deep thought was marked upon his forehead. His dark eye always expressed a peculiar something which might not perhaps be improperly entitled GENIUS. Its usual expression was intelligent, affectionate, and searching; and when under the influence of strong excitement it was lighted up with a brilliancy almost preternatural.

His natural disposition was social, unostentatious, and peculiarly sensitive. He was alive to every generous emotion, and the sympathies of friendship found ample reciprocation in his heart. So delicate, however, was his sensibility, that he seemed but ill adapted to struggle with the callous, selfish, and commercial world. The chords of the lyre were too delicately strung to bear the rude touches of adversity. But he has been removed beyond the reach of moral evil!

The understanding of Mr. B. was sound and discriminating. He was a very original and independent thinker. He received nothing without due evidence; yet he was not disposed to undervalue the settled opinions of the religious world. His own religious creed was firm, liberal, and comprehensive, and his cultivated mind furnished ample means of defense when any of its principles were assailed. All his powers, natural and acquired, were self-devoted to the service of God, they gave every evidence of being sanctified by his grace, and although he died while young, he left the world a humble, intelligent, and confiding Christian.

We may delight to linger round his tomb, and to call to remembrance the cherished scenes of other days. But we must leave him.

Reader! are you not ready to exclaim, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his." N.

imputing, and second, by our act in receiving by faith. If this righteousness become ours according to the modern notion which we combat, then it would be well to insert it distinctly, on the first revision which our stand. ards may undergo; for there it certainly is not at present to be found.

With Dr. Wylie, I firmly maintain the doctrine of federal re. presentation, although I differ from him in its application to this subject. The efficiency of imputation is excluded in his view of the subject, whereas it constitutes a very principal feature in that which I am constrained to take. He says, we become sin ners in Adam, and righteous in Christ, from the fact of our being representees of these federal heads, or by virtue of identifying with them, and that, indepen. dently of any imputation of sin or righteousness. The matter admits of a juster explanation. In both these cases, such was the nature of the representation as not to constitute us personally sinful or righteous, but to justify God in accounting us sinful or righteous. In the sin of Adam, we did not personally and actually sin, unless there existed between us a strict personal identity, which is a thing impossible; neither in the obedience of Christ, did we personally and actually obey, for the same reason; but in the first case, all men were, by the ordination of God, so federally connected with Adam, that his personal sin was justly accounted to them so as to render them guilty before God; and in

the second, all the elect were so federally connected with Christ, that his righteousness is imputed or set to their account. To hold that we become sinners in this way, that is, by imputation, Dr. Wylie considers as savoring of rank impiety, inasmuch as it makes God the author of sin. To say the least of this insertion, it is incautious. But I would ask Dr. Wylie, if God is not as much chargeable with originating sin on his scheme? Has he not established the federal connection between Adam and his posterity, in consequence of which they have become sinners? And might it not, with equal truth, be said in this case as in the other, he has become the author of sin?

But I refrain. We should be cautious in our expressions, when considering the deep things of God. I am prepared to justify God in accounting me a sinner in consequence of my relation to Adam, although that relation was established before I had a personal existence. God imputes the sin of Adam to me, and I become a guilty sinner without any impeachment of the divine. justice; he imputes the righteousness of Christ to me, and I become justified to the praise and glory of his grace.

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I must own my surprise that Dr. Wylie should express his pleasure at his coincidence of opinion on this point with Dr. Ely, inasmuch as the latter has certainly not been regarded, of late, as very good authority on the subject of orthodoxy. P.

Mr. Burtt,

Dear Sir--Contrary to my intention when I troubled you with a former communication, I again reluctantly intrude myself upon your attention in relation to the same topic, the doctrine of imputation. From the remarks of Mr. P., and from some of his deductions from my positions, I am convinced I have not been so happy as to be perfectly understood. To this cause exclusively I attribute any thing like misrepresentation of my sentiments on this very interesting topic. The frankness, candor, urbanity, and Christian spirit, which breathe through the whole of his animadversions, are duly appreciated; and it is hoped, in the remarks about to be made, Mr. P. will have no room to complain of a want of reciprocity. Indeed, I should rather, as we do not live in Venice, that my good friend had laid aside the mask of ano. nymous signature, and appeared under his own name. I am confident he has no need to be ashamed of being known. But let that pass. It matters little. My maxim is, and I trust in such cases always will be, Principia, non homines.

The first observation I would make, is, that Mr. P. has misrepresented my sentiments, (doubt less unintentionally,) as to the natural localities of imputation and justification. I never in. tended to convey the idea that justification preceded the imputa. tion of the Redeemer's righteous. ness, condemnation the imputation of Adam's sin. I did say, and do maintain, that in Christ Jesus, i. e. united unto him by the bond

of the Spirit, the sinner cannot but be justified. But by this it was never intended to be com. municated, that union to Christ and justification identified; but that this union puts the sinner in possession of a righteousness, which God imputing to him, constitutes his justifying righteous. ness. God recognizes this righteousness as legally his, reckons it to him, and thus justifies him. In the order of nature, therefore, and also, as I think, in the order of accurate apprehension of them, regeneration precedes, as the consummation of our legal identity with the Savior. Thus, possessing a righteousness answering all the demands of the law, whether perceptively or penally considered, God can and does in justice credit us with it, or in other words, sets it to our account, or imputes it to us. Next comes the sentence or judicial pronunciation of acquittal-justi fication. Yet all these three are simultaneous in the order of time. Hence I asserted, that in Christ the sinner cannot but be justified.

The second observation I would make, is, that I think Mr. P. does me injustice when he asserts, that according to my view of the subject, "imputation in theology is reduced to a mere nonentity as to any efficiency or use in the scheme of doctrine." On what does Mr. P. found this assertion? If I understand him correctly, he infers, that because I maintain that the sinner is possessed of Christ's righteousness antecedently to imputation, and deny that this righteousness is conferred by imputation, that therefore I reduce, by my doctrine, impu.