of original righteousness, whence arise the sinful defilement of our nature, corruption of all our parts and faculties, and the domineering bondage to sin. Thus they account for the fall, degradation, and misery of our race. The curse causeless

. does not come. It is the penalty of the sin of our progenitor imputed to us, because, standing on trial for us, we “sinned in him and fell with him in the first transgression.”

The Realistic View, as maintained by Dr. Schaff.

In presenting and discussing Dr. Schaff's view of original sin, and of the relation of Adam's first sin to the fall of our race, it is not requisite to our present purpose, if we had the space, to go into any minutiæ of grammatical criticism or verbal controversy, beyond what is involved in showing, 1. How far he agrees with us; 2. How far he concedes our principles, when he claims, or seems, to differ; and 3. What is the exact and only real point of difference, and with which view the weight of evidence and argument lies. What is true of his presentation is substantially true of that of Dr. Shedd, and realistic Augustinians generally.

1. Dr. Schaff maintains that Adam, in his first transgression, was on trial, not for himself alone, but for the race. “It was man, or human nature, which we have in common with him, that was put on trial in Adam," p. 176. So, he holds,

2. That all men sinned in Adam, as their head and representative. He says: “We hold that all men sinned in Adam,

“ , not, indeed, personally by conscious, actual transgression, but virtually and potentially; in other words, that Adam fell, not as an individual simply, but as the real representative head of the human race," p. 179. Still further, he maintains that TavTES naprov, in Rom. v. 12, means, not that all became sinful, or had a sinful nature, but that they sinned in act, which was, and could only be, in the first sin of Adam, p. 177. Moreover, he says that mapán twua, in verses 15, 17, 18, is “not a sinful state, or condition, but a concrete, actual sin,

by which Adam fell.” The same also of tapakon, verse 19.

3. Dr. Schaff maintains that death was inflicted on Adam

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

and his posterity in punishment of his sin, and that it includes every form of penal evil. After stating that, “There are three kinds of death : (1), the death of the soul, which is properly the first and immediate effect of sin, since sin is the separation of the soul from God, the fountain of life; (2), the death of the the body, which is the culmination and end of all physical malady and evil in this world ; (3), the eternal death of soul and body, which is also called the second death,” he says : “In one passage (Rom. v. 12); death hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, as also Rom. vii. 21-23; vii. 5; 2 Τim. i. 10; ο θάνατος is as comprehensive as ή αμαρτια, its cause, and as ń Śwn, its opposite. It embraces allall physical and moral evil as the penal consequence of sin; it is death temporal and spiritual, viewed as one united power and principle ruling over the human race. That the Apostle meant physical death is clear, froin verse 14.”—P. 176.

4. Therefore he holds that the present reign of sin and death over our race is in its originating cause,—the punishment of Adam's first sin, wherein we “sinned in him, and fell with him in the first transgression.”

5. Therefore, also, that this sin is imputed or reckoned to the account of their posterity, so that they are condemned, and punished for it. That he avowedly holds to some sort of imputation, appears from his saying that, “ the new school theology of New England has gone to the opposite extreme of rejecting imputation under any form." --P. 193.

6. Not only so, but this imputation of Adam's sin can be no other than immediate. The imputation is, indeed, on the ground of virtual, not personal, participation in it by his posterity. It matters not what the ground is, the imputation of that sin is none the less immediate in his theory, than on the more exclusively federal, which he opposes so strenuously. It is in punishment of that sin which, as immediately participated in by the race, is immediately imputed to it, that it is afflicted with that death, which “embraces all physical and moral evil, as the penal consequence of sin.” We do not understand Dr. Schaff to object so much to immediate impntation, as to “exclusive immediate imputationism." -- Pp. 192-3.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66 The

7. Ilence, we see not how his view comes short of that of our standards already quoted, viz., “ The covenant being made with Adam, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in birn, and fell with him in the first transgression. fall brought mankind into a state of sin and misery.” The sinfulness of that estate, where into man fell, consists in the guilt (obnoxiousness to punishment) of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin, together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it."

Where then is the difference between Dr. Schaff and ourselves ? And what inspires his frequent, earnest, and even vehement protestations against what he, with others, considers the “Princeton ” view? We will now attempt briefly to get at the true answer to this question.

He says: "Legal representation seemed to offer an easier vindication of Divine justice than the Augustinian view. It involves, undoubtedly, an element of truth, but, if detached from the idea of moral participation, it resolves itself into a mere legal fiction, and greatly enhances the difficulty of the problem, by removing the best reason for imputation.”—P. 194. What is this “moral participation ”in Adam's sin, which Dr. Schaff insists on as the necessary basis of legal representation? It is not merely what is implied in his acting as our representative. It is something more required to warrant his righteously acting in that capacity. What is this something?

[ocr errors]

Dr. Schaff es. pouses what he considers the Augustinian theory, which he pronounces "realistic." He

" realistic.” He says: “The AUGUSTINIAN OR REAListic theory of a real, though impersonal and unconscious, participation of the whole race in the fall of Adam, as their natural head, who by his individual transgression vitiated the generic human nature, and transmitted it in this corrupt and guilty state to his descendants by physical generation. As an individual act, Adam's sin and guilt were his own exclusively, and are not transferable to any other individual; but as the act of mankind in their collective, undistributed, and unindividualized form of existence, it was virtually, or potentially, the act of all who were germinally or seminally contained in their first parent, as Levi was in the loins of Abraham. (Heb. vii. 9, 10.)* Persona

* But how did Levi pay tithes in Abraham ? Not literally, but representative. ly. Ebrard says in loco— "That he does not mean an absolute participation by


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

corrumpit naturam. Natura corrumpit personam."—P. 192. It is evident that Augustine did not teach, as he is sometimes misrepresented, a personal and conscious coexistence and coagency of Adam's posterity in Adam and his fall (which involves the contradiction of existence before existence), but simply a potential, germinal coexistence. The genus homo, or human nature, which he represented, was not a receptacle of millions of human beings, but a single simple essence which became manifold by propagation. As in the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ we distinguish between nature and perBon, so also here. Our human nature was on trial in Adam and fell in him ; consequently, we all fell as partaking of that nature, and share in his guilt.”—P. 178.

So Lange says, “ Paul evidently views the human race as an organic unit.”—P.173. Says Dr. Schaff again: “The human race is not a sand-heap, but an organic unity; and only on the ground of such a vital unity, as distinct from a mechanical or merely federal unity, can we understand and defend the doctrine of original sin, the imputation of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness. Without an actual communion of life, imputation is an arbitrary legal arrangement."-P. 179.

"The purely federal school (from nominalistic premises, according to which the general conceptions are mere names, not things,-subjective abstractions, not ob. jective realities) denies the Adamic unity of the race in the realistic sense; consequently, all participation of Adam's descendants in the act of the primal apostasy ; yet it holds that by virtue of his federal headship on the ground of a sovereign arrangement, his sin and guilt are justly, directly, and immediately imputed to them."—Pp. 193-4. "Dr. Hodges' hostility to the realistic Augustinian view, proceeds, I think, from a misunderstanding; he does not distinguish between a vir. tual or potential, and a personal or individual coexistence and coagency of the race in Adam,"--P. 194.

We think these quotations sufficiently disclose the real and only point of difference,-a realistic oneness of the race, so that the act of one is literally and really the act of all, being maintained by Dr. Schaff, as not only true, but of the utinost importance to account for the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. This the “purely federal school,” with multitudes besides, does not see its way clear to adopt. But as Dr. Schaff and others at times get aside of the real issue, or evince a misunderstanding of our position, we will premise a few things to prevent misapprehension. Levi in the paying of tithes, but only such a participation in a certain sense, not a participation in the act as such, but only in the results and legal consequences of it, seems to me to be indicated by the clause ós ETOS ELTELV, which is added to de dekrautai, etc., etc.


1. The question is not whether there is an organic or vital connection of the race with Adam. This all admit. who admit that the race is descended from him by ordinary generation. The federal school do not hold the race to be a “sand-heap," or embrace any “atomistic” conception of its unity. Those who have such conceptions of the unity of the human race can defend them if they see cause. That is not our mission, nor do such objections to the federal theory touch us.

2. Nor is the question whether this natural and vital connection of the race with Adam is the reason and ground of his being constituted their federal or representative bead. He is made their covenant head, doubtless, because he is their natural head. This renders it fit that he should be appointed to act for them, as well as himself, and bring upon them as well as himself the consequences of his action. It is according to the ordinance of God, as evinced in his word and idence, that, in ways innumerable, parents should represent children, act for them, and involve them in the conseqnences of their conduct for better or for worse. So he visits the ini. quities of the fathers upon their children and shows mercy to them that love him unto thousands of generations. As rulers properly represent and act for their constituents, so do parents rightfully stand in a like relation to their children in things innumerable, irrespective of any appointment on the part of the latter. The federal or representative school have almost universally found the reason of God's constituting a federal headship, in a prior natural headship, as appears in various quotations made by Dr. Schaff from Turrettin and others; but they have maintained that the ground of the imputation of his first sin to his posterity is that therein Adam acted in his federal or representative capacity. Thus our own standards, which have been sufficiently shown to hold the federal view, refer to Adam's being “the root of mankind ” as the ultimate ground of the whole arrangement. It is common for the old Reformed symbols and theologians to refer our being in “the loins” of Adam as implicated with the special covenant made with him. Turrettin, in a familiar passage quoted by Dr. Schaff, says:

« ElőzőTovább »