avoiding this sin and fulfilling the law; but He had endowed Him sufficiently with all things requisite for that purpose, and preserved him after he was thus endued.

IX. But the Divine permission intervened;-not as having permitted that act to man's [jus] legitimate right and [potestas] power, that he might commit it without sin, for such a permission as this is contrary to legislation; (Gen. ii, 17 ;)—but as having permitted it to the free-will and [potentia] capability of man. This Divine Permission is not the denial or the withdrawing of the grace necessary and sufficient for fulfilling the law; (Isai. v, 4;) for if a permission of this kind were joined to legislation, it would ascribe the efficiency of sin to God. But it is the suspension of some efficiency, which is possible to God both according to right and to capability, and which, if exerted, would prevent sin in its actual commission: This is commonly called "an efficacious hindrance." But God was not bound to employ this impediment, when He had already laid down those hindrances to sin which might and ought to have withheld and deterred man from sinning, and which consisted in the communication of his own image, in the appointment of his law, in the threat of punishments, and in the promise of rewards.

X. Though the Cause of this Permission may be reckoned in the number of those things which, such is the will of God, are hidden from us, (Deut. xxix, 29,) yet, while with modesty and reverence we inspect the acts of God, it appears to us that a two-fold Cause may be maintained, The one à priori, the other à posteriori. (1.) We will enunciate the former in the words of Tertullian :*"If God had once allowed to man the free exercise "of his own will and had [dignè] duly granted this permission, "He undoubtedly had permitted the enjoyment of these things "through the very authority of the institution: But they were "to be enjoyed as in Him, and according to Him; that is, according to God, that is, for good. For who will permit any "thing against himself? But as in man [they were to be enjoyed] "according to the motions of his liberty."-(2.) The Cause à posteriori shall be given in the words of St. Augustine: †" A "Good Being would not suffer evil to be done, unless He was "likewise Omnipotent, and capable [facere benè] of bringing good out of that evil.”

66

66

XI. The material cause of this sin is the tasting of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is an

act in its own nature indifferent, and easily avoidable by man in the midst of such abundant plenty of good and various fruits. From this shine forth the admirable benignity and kindness of God; whose will it was to have experience of the obedience of his creature, in an act which that creature could with the utmost facility omit, without injury to his nature, and even without any detriment to his pleasure. This seems to have been intimated by God himself when he propounded the precept in this manner: "Of every tree of the garden thou shalt freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." (Gen. ii, 16, 17.)

XII. But the Form of this sin is avopia, "the transgression of the law," (1 John iii, 4,) which belongs to this act in reference to its having been forbidden by the law: And because this [respectus] relation adhered to the act from the time when God circumscribed it by a law, the effect of it was that the act ought to be omitted. (Dan. iii, 18.) For the moral evil, which adhered to it through the prohibition of God, was greater, than the natural good which was in the act by nature. There was also in man the image of God, according to which he ought to have been more abhorrent of that act because sin adhered to it, than to be inclined by a natural affection to the act itself because some good was joined with it.

XIII. No end can be assigned to this sin. For evil, of itself, has not an end, since an end has always reference to a good. But the acts of the end were, that man might obtain a likeness to God in the knowledge of good and evil, and that he might satisfy his senses of taste and seeing. (Gen. iii, 5, 6.) But he did not suppose, that he would gain this similitude by sin as such, but by an act as it was a natural one. It had the boundary which the Divine determination placed round about it and which was two-fold: The one, agreeing with the nature of sin, according to the severity of God: The other, transcending sin, nay, contravening it, according to the grace and mercy of God. (Rom. ix, 22, 23.)

THE HEINOUSNESS OF THIS SIN.

XIV. From the particulars already discussed, some judgment may be formed of the heinousness of this sin, which seems principally to consist of these four things: (1.) That it is the transgression of a law that is not peculiar [to one person, or only to a few,] but of a law which universally bears witness to the obligation of man towards God, and which [explorat] is a test of

his obedience: A contempt of this law has in it a renunciation of the covenant into which God has entered with man, and of the obedience which from that covenant is due to God. (Gen. xvii, 14.)-(2.) That man perpetrated this crime, after he had been placed in a state of innocence and adorned by God with such excellent endowments as those of "the knowledge of God," and "righteousness and true holiness." (Gen. i, 26, 27; Col. iii, 10; Ephes. iv, 24.)-(3.) That when so many facilities existed for not sinning, especially in the act itself, yet man did not abstain from this sin. (Gen. ii, 16, 17.)-(4.) That he committed this sin in a place that was sanctified as a type of the celestial Paradise. (ii, 15, 16; iii, 6, 23; Rev, ii, 7.) There are some other things which may aggravate this sin; but since it has them in common with most other offences, we shall not at present enter into a discussion of them.

THE EFFECTS OF THIS SIN.

XV. The proper and immediate Effect of this sin was the offending of the Deity. For since the Form of sin is "the transgression of the law," (1 John iii, 4,) it primarily and immediately [impingit] strikes against the Legislator himself, (Gen. iii, 11,) and this with the offending of One whose express will it was that his law [non impingi] should not be offended. From this violation of his law, God conceives just displeasure, which is the second Effect of sin. (iii, 16-19, 23, 24.) But to anger succeeds infliction of punishment, which was in this instance two-fold: (1.) [Reatus] A liability to two deaths. (ii, 17; Rom. vi, 23.)— (2.) [Privatio] The withdrawing of that primitive righteousness and holiness, which, because they are the effects of the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, ought not to have remained in him after he had fallen from the favour of God, and had incurred the Divine displeasure. (Luke xix, 26.) For this Spirit is a seal of God's favour and good-will. (Rom. viii. 14, 15; 1 Cor. ii, 12.)

XVI. The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended from them by the natural mode of propagation, according to the primitive benediction: For in Adam "all have sinned." (Rom. v, 12.) Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity: So that all 66 men are by nature the children of wrath," (Ephes. ii, 3,) obnoxious to condemnation, and to temporal as well as to

eternal death; they are also devoid of that original righteousness and holiness. (Rom. v, 12, 18, 19.) With these evils they would remain oppressed for ever, unless they were liberated by Christ Jesus; to whom be glory for ever.

DISPUTATION VIII.

ON ACTUAL SINS.

Respondent, CASPAR WILTENS.

I. As divines and philosophers are often compelled, on account of a penury of words, to distinguish those which are synonymous, and to receive others in a stricter or more ample signification than their nature and etymology will allow; so in this matter of actual sin, although the term applies also to the first sin of Adam, yet, for the sake of a more accurate distinction, they commonly take it for that sin which man commits, through the corruption of his nature, from the time when he knows how to use reason; and they define it thus: "Something thought, spoken or done against the law of God; or the omission of something which has been commanded by that law to be thought, spoken or done." Or, with more brevity, "Sin is the transgression of the law;" which St. John has explained in this compound word avoμia, "anomy." (1 John iii, 4.)

II. For as the law is preceptive of good and prohibitory of evil, it is necessary not only that an action, but that the neglect of an action, be accounted a sin: Hence arises the first distinction of sin into that of Commission, when a prohibited act is perpetrated, as theft, murder, adultery, &c.: And into that of Omission, when a man abstains from [the performance of] an act that has been commanded; as if any one does not render due honour to a magistrate, or bestows on the poor nothing in proportion to the amplitude of his means. And since the Law is two-fold,-one." the Law of works," properly called " the Law," -the other" the Law of faith," (Rom. iii, 27,) which is the Gospel of the grace of God;-therefore sin is either that which is committed against the Law, or against the Gospel of Christ. (Heb. ii, 2, 3.) That which is committed against the Law, provokes the wrath of God against sinners; that against the Gospel, causes the wrath of God to abide upon us; the former, by deserving punishment; the latter, by preventing the remission of punishment.

III. One is a sin per se, "of itself;" another, per accidens,

"accidentally." (1.) A sin per se is every external or internal action which is prohibited by the law, or every neglect of an action commanded by the law. (2) A sin is per accidens either in things necessary and restricted by law, or in things indifferent. In things necessary,-either when an act prescribed by law is performed without its due circumstances, such as to bestow alms that you may obtain praise from men; (Matt. vi, 2;)—or when an act prohibited by law is omitted, not from a due cause and for a just end; as when any one represses his anger at the moment, that he may afterwards exact more cruel vengeance. In things indifferent, when any one uses them to the offence of the weak. (Rom. xiv, 15, 21.)

IV. Sin is likewise divided in reference to the personal object against whom the offence is committed; and it is either against God, against our neighbour, or against ourselves, according to what the Apostle says: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." (Tit. ii, 11.) Where soberness is appropriately referred to the man himself; righteousness, to our neighbour; and godliness, to God: These, we affirm, are likewise contained in the two grand precepts, "Love God above all things," and "Love thy neighbour as thyself." For howsoever it may seem, that the Ten Commandments prescribe only what is due to God and to our neighbour; yet this very requirement is of such a nature that it cannot be performed by a man without fulfilling at the same time his duty to himself.

V. It is further distinguished, from its cause, into sins of Ignorance, Infirmity, Malignity, and Negligence. (1.) A sin of Ignorance is, when a man does any thing which he does not know to be a sin; thus, Paul persecuted Christ in his Church. (1 Tim. i, 13.)—(2.) A sin of Infirmity is, when, through fear, which may befal even a brave man, or through any other more vehement passion and perturbation of mind, he commits any offence; thus, Peter denied Christ, (Matt. xxvi, 70,) and thus David, being offended by Nabal, was proceeding to destroy him and his domestics. (1 Sam. xxv, 13, 21.)—(3.) A sin of Malignity or Malice, when any thing is committed with a determined purpose of mind and with deliberate counsel; thus Judas denied Christ, (Matt. xxvi, 14, 15,) and thus David caused Uriah to be killed. (2 Sam. xi, 15.)—(4.) A sin of Negligence is, when a man is overtaken by a sin, (Gal. vi, 1,) which encircles and besets him before he can reflect within himself about the deed: