097. II. Law Of Adamic Origin.
II. Law Of Adamic Origin. With agreement respecting the Adamic origin of depravity, there are different theories respecting its ground or law. For the present we are concerned with the statement and discrimination of these theories. They are so fundamental in doctrinal anthropology as to require separate treatment.
1. Theory of Penal Retribution.—In this theory depravity is a punishment, judicially inflicted upon mankind. It is maintained that under the providence of God so great tin evil could not befall the race except as a punishment. Advocates of the theory may often use the term original sin instead of depravity, meaning by it not only the corruption of human nature but also its sinfulness or demerit. However, as sinfulness is held to be intrinsic to the depravity, just as it is intrinsic to an actual sin, we need not be careful further to notice any difference of the terms in the present connection. If depravity is in itself sin, then the penal infliction of depravity is the penal infliction of original sin. Nor can this form of sin be inflicted without the infliction of depravity. The theory will more fully appear under the next head.
2. On the Ground of Adamic Sin.—If depravity is a punishment it must have its ground in guilt. The most rigid Calvinism holds this principle firmly. Any punishment without a ground in guilt must be an injustice. The alleged guilt in this case is held to arise from a participation in the sin of Adam, as the only precedent sin, and to an intimate connection with which the common depravity is traced. This is the Calvinistic theory. It is such at least in the general sense. On many questions there are divergences in Calvinistic minds. There may be dissent from the present theory, but there is not enough to disturb its Calvinistic position. On this question, Cunningham, after noting some Calvinistic dissent or reserve, proceeds to say: “A second class, comprehending the great body of Calvinistic divines, have regarded it (the common depravity) as, in some measure and to some extent, explained by the principle of its being a penal infliction upon men, resulting from the imputation to them of the guilt of Adam’s first sin.” And further: “There is no view of God’s actings in this whole matter which at all accords with the actual, proved realities of the case, except that which represents him in the light of a just judge punishing sin—a view which implies that men’s want of original righteousness and the corruption of their whole nature have a penal character, are punishments righteously inflicted on account of sin. . . . And the only explanation which Scripture affords of this mysterious constitution of things is, that men have the guilt of Adam’s first sin imputed to them or charged against them, so as to be legally exposed to the penalties which he incurred.”[482] On the same question Dr. Shedd quotes with approval from the Formula Consensus Helvetici: “But it does not appear how hereditary corruption, as spiritual death, could fall upon the entire human race by the just judgment of God, unless some fault of this same human race bringing in the penalty of that death had preceded. For the most just God, the Judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty.” [483]While depravity is thus clearly set forth as a punishment on the ground of guilt, it is also declared in the same Formula that the guilt which justifies the penal infliction arises from a common participation in the sin of Adam. Dr. Shedd not only fully indorses this view, but places thisFormula at the head of all Calvinistic symbols of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as the clearest and most scientific statement of the doctrine of original sin in its Adamic connection.[484] Here, then, in addition to the authority of this Formula, we have the testimony of two eminent Calvinistic authors, Cunningham and Shedd, who have made the history of doctrines a special study, who are in opposition respecting the mode of the common participation in the guilt of Adam’s sin, who yet fully agree that Calvinism holds depravity to be a penal retribution on the ground of such guilt.
[482]
[483]
[484]
3. Realistic and Representative Modes of Adamic Sin.—With the assertion of a common participation in the sin of Adam, and such a participation as justly subjects all men to the penal infliction of depravity, the question must arise as to the ground or mode of such participation. Some answer must be given. No theory could consent to a purely arbitrary implication of the race in the Adamic sin. There are two alleged modes, the realistic and the representative. The former alleges a real oneness of the race with Adam, in some higher or lower form of realism; the latter, a legal oneness under a law of representation. For the present we simply state the views. Full explication will be given with their discussion. Each is held by its advocates to be valid in principle, and sufficient for the common guilt and punishment.
Calvinists divide on these modes, though the representative is for the present the more prevalent view. The issue really involves two questions: Which is the Calvinistic theory? And, Which is the true theory? Many of the older Calvinistic divines alleged both modes of Adamic guilt, which fact naturally gives rise to the first question. In the contention both parties quote the same authors, as well they may, since said authors are on both sides. But it is unscientific, mere jumbling, indeed, to hold both modes, for they are in opposition and reciprocally exclusive. If both were valid, each mode must convey to every soul of the race the whole guilt of Adam’s sin. This would make each twice as guilty as Adam himself. It is surely enough to be thus made equally guilty. Calvinistic divines are very properly coming to hold more exclusively to the one or the other mode.[485]
[485]
4. Theory of the Genetic Transmission of Depravity.—This theory is based on the law of “like producing like”—the uniform law of propagated life. It holds sway over the most prolonged succession of generations, and is as fixed and permanent in the human species as in any other. Under this law man is now what he was in the earliest offspring of Adam, and what he has been through all the intermediate generations. As in physiological constitution and mental endowment he is thus the same, so is he the same in his moral state. This is a state of depravity genetically transmitted from the fallen and depraved progenitors of the race. Such is the account of the Adamic origin of the common depravity on the theory of genetic transmission.
5. Doctrinal Distinction of the Two Theories.—It should be remembered here that the theory of penal retribution, which accounts the common depravity a punishment on the ground of a common participation in the sin of Adam, is but one theory, though its advocates divide into two classes respecting the mode of that participation. It will thus be clearly seen that we have in this section presented but two theories respecting the law of the Adamic origin of depravity. Their doctrinal distinction is easily stated, though for greater clearness we should keep entirely separate all questions respecting the intrinsic evil of depravity, or whether in itself it is truly sinful and. deserving of the divine wrath. Both theories hold, and equally, the Adamic origin of depravity. Both hold its connection with the sin of Adam through which he fell under the divine retribution and suffered the corruption of his own nature. So far the two theories are the same. Beyond this they differ widely. The one denies a responsible participation in the sin of Adam and the penal infliction of depravity on the race; the other affirms both.
These are fundamental theories, and must be separately treated —the Calvinistic in its two modes of accounting for the common Adamic sin which it alleges. They are the only fundamental theories. There is no place for a third, however many speculative or mixed theories may be devised. Whichever is the true one must contain the whole truth of the question.