Page images
PDF
EPUB

if this were so, how are we to account for the fact that all fell, went in one way, with no universal preponderating bias in that direction? This explanation, therefore, itself needs explaining in the same way as that which is explained by it. But, 3. The conclusive reason is, that this view is contrary to scripture, which, in the judgment of nearly all Christendom, attributes to Adam's sin, not a mere typical or exem plary, but a causative, relation to the sin and death of his posterity; an interpretation which candid readers of Rom. v. 12 et seq. cannot easily avoid.

If then we, with the scriptures, give to Adam's sin this causative relation to the fall of our race, it must, in some way, have possessed the nature of a probation, not only for himself, but his posterity, in order to warrant the inflic tion of so dire a punishment upon them. We will not overlook, however, a large, and respectable, and in some parts of this country predominant, class of theologians, who, while admitting that the fallen condition of our race is the effect, deny that it is the penal effect, of Adam's sin. They say that it is not a punishment or judicial infliction for Adam's sin, but that it arises solely from a sovereign constitution, whereby, upon his sinning, his posterity were to be brought into a state of sin and misery. This dread calamity is a mere sovereign allotment, without any trial or sin, either in themselves or an appropriate representative. To this we object, in common with the Reformed, not to speak of other branches of the church: 1. It is in direct conflict with the scriptural representation, which af firms not only a sovereign causation, but a judicial relation between Adam's sin and the ruin of the race. "The judgment was by one to condemnation.” By the offence of one (judgment came) upon all men to condemnation" (pipa εἰς κατάκριμα), eis Kaτákρiμa), Rom. v. 16, 18. These, supported as they are by the whole context, are plain words, and mean something more than mere sovereign infliction, not in punishment of sin. 2. We object further that it rejects the only solution of our deplorable estate, as related to the administration of VOL. XXI. No. 81.

13

[ocr errors]

a righteous and benevolent God, afforded by his word. Nature.confessedly sheds no light here. The Bible affords us this clew, that "in Adam all die," because all are under "condemnation" for his "one offence" in paradise, which implies that they had a probation in him, so that his sin is justly reckoned to their account, and they are dealt with as if it were their own personally. But to reject this solution is to leave the infliction of the most tremendous evils on a race of moral beings wholly unaccounted for, and to sever the nexus in such beings between sin and suffering, which is a first law of natural conscience and the word of God, and an essential bond of the moral universe. 3. We reject it because of the parallelism exhibited between the relation of Adam's sin to the condemnation of his posterity, and the righteousness of Christ to the justification of his people (Rom. v. 12 et seq.). If the way in which Adam's sin inures to our ruin is by mere sovereign allotment, and not by being its meritorious ground, then the righteousness of Christ works our salvation by mere arbitrary allotment, and not as its meritorious ground. This invalidates justification through the alone merits and righteousness of Christ. For "as by the offence of one (judgment) came upon 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 the disobedience of one many were made sinners, even so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom. v. 18, 19). In view of these and

1 Says Chalmers, "On the authority of revelation, and in obedience to the analogy of the faith, we feel inclined to the highest view that has been given of the subject of imputation. ..... We confess that we hailed it as a great acquisition when we first became acquainted with Edwards's view of the mediate imputation, and rejoiced in it as another instance of the accordance which obtains between the evangelism of the Bible and those discoveries which are gained by a deeper insight into the constitution of human nature, or into the secrets of mental and metaphysical science. It is the parallelism which the scripture affirms between the imputation of Adam's guilt and the imputation of Christ's righteousness which has broken up this illusion, as I now regard it to be, because consistent neither with the statements of the Bible nor the findings of experimental Christianity." - Chalmers's Posthumous Works (Harper's ed.), Vol. VII. pp. 482, 483.

other considerations, a much larger number have embraced the doctrine that Adam's first sin is not only the cause, but, by virtue of a just imputation to his posterity, the meritorious cause, of their depravation and ruin, these being the penal effects of it. But here the problem has been, so to connect Adam and his sin with his descendants, as to furnish a reasonable ground of its imputation to them. The prevailing doctrine of the Reformed, not to speak of other churches, as shown by their symbols and standard theologians, is that he, by covenant, was constituted their representative, so that his act was in this sense and in legal effect accounted and treated as their act, and, on this ground, imputed to them. It is not denied that this view has its difficulties, but, as we think, incomparably less than other schemes which have all its difficulties with many others peculiar to themselves. It is not denied that it at length. roots itself in mystery. But bereft of this solution, we sink from mystery to rayless depths of "darkness visible," "insomuch that man is more incomprehensible without this mystery, than this mystery is incomprehensible to him." Some, however, have endeavored to escape these difficulties, by resorting to the scheme which accounts for the transmission of hereditary depravity by the natural laws of propagation, according to which, like begets like. So Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Gen. v. 3). It is obvious, however, that this law of propagation, whatever it may be, is God's sovereign creation, unless it be constituted, as it is, for the purpose of carrying into execution the penalty inflicted on the race for the sin of Adam. In this latter alternative, it is a part of the means of a judicial infliction, which is our view. In the former, it is a means of a mere sovereign infliction, and exposed to all the objections just brought against that view. Moreover, the law of descent, throughout animated nature, only insures the transmission of the essential qualities of the kind or species propagated. It does not, of itself, insure the transmission of separable accidents. It insures the transmission in men

of an animal and rational nature-the essence of manhood; but not of those separable accidents which distinguish the individuals, races, and varieties of mankind from each other. Now sin and holiness are, as we have before seen, separable accidents, in the presence or absence of either of which, manhood remains. The necessary laws of propagation, therefore, do not account for the universal degradation, corruption, and misery of the descendants of Adam. It can only be accounted for, in our judgment, as a judicial infliction for the sin of their first parent, on some fit ground, reckoned to their account.

Some other methods of accounting for the charging of Adam's sin to the account of his posterity, must not be overlooked.

One of these is the realistic theory of our race, according to which manhood is one substance, and whatever Adam did, all men did; therefore, his first sin was their sin. But the obvious difficulty here is, that on this scheme, not only the first sin, but all the sins, of Adam were those of his posterity; their acts too are his acts, all personal identity and accountability are confounded and vacated. Moreover, realism, by necessary consequence, has its logical terminus in pantheism. It comes to one substance of the universe, or of that summum genus, called being, which includes all things. This scheme, therefore, generates a hundred difficulties for one it removes. Withal, it invalidates the doctrine of justi fication by Christ's righteousness. As before shown, the scriptures draw a parallel between the mode of condemna tion by Adam's sin and of justification by Christ's righteousness. If, then, Adam's sin condemns us because it is ours inherently, Christ's righteousness justifies us because it is ours inherently. We are thus justified by our own inherent virtues. This subverts the whole Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Others maintain a sort of lite ral sinning in Adam by his descendants, because they were potentially in his loins, as the branches in the root. This implies that we were literally present, and participating in

Adam's first sin. This is obviously impossible, and exposed to some of the most serious and fatal objections lying against the realistic scheme. Many, however, have used such language as sinning in the loins, or because we were in the loins, of Adam, to denote either sinning in him interpretatively, as our federal head and representative, or to indicate the reason of his being constituted such. With such we have no controversy, further than that some of them have used language so loosely as to invite or cause serious misinterpretation of their meaning.

Another scheme is that of mediate imputation. By this is meant, that Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity not immediately, but mediately, through their own innate depravity, whereby they are supposed to consent to it; that in virtue of such supposed or implied consent to his sin, it may be reckoned, or they be treated, as if it were their own. This, however, is no real imputation of Adam's sin, but simply of their implied consent to it. Moreover, this does not account for the universal degradation and misery of our race. It presupposes them, either as a sovereign infliction or hereditary transmission, without any previous trial of any sort. It therefore stands on the same footing as those schemes already considered. Especially if Adam's sin is imputed to us on account of our previous sin, then, from the apostle's parallel between the two (Rom. v.), Christ's righteousness must be imputed to us mediately, through or on account of our previous righteousness. This grounds our justification on works of righteousness that we have done, and thus logically subverts the evangelical system.

In stating our objections to other theories, thus successively eliminated, we have virtually stated our own - that to which we, and, as we understand it, an immense majority of Old school, to say nothing of other Presbyterians, feel shut up. This is affirmed, while it is freely admitted that some, we know not how many, hold to some of the explanations of the imputation of Adam's sin already refer red and excepted to by us. Our position, as shown by our

« PreviousContinue »