TION of righteousness, and the regeneration or restoration of corrupt nature, so also the evil flowing from the sin of Adam is double; first, GUILT, on account of the sin committed by him, and depravity of nature contracted from him and propagated to us.-(Explic. of the Catechism, par. i., quest. 7.)

George Sohnius, the colleague of Ursinus at Heidelberg.

Original sin, as well in Adam as in his posterity, includes three deadly evils, the demerit, the guilt or liableness to punishment, and the depravity or corruption of nature. All these concur in the parent and in his posterity in relation to the first sin, with this difference only, that Adam sinning was the principal agent committing the fault, deserving the guilt, and casting off the image of God, and rendering himself depraved. Of all these do his posterity partake by IMPUTATION and by generation from a corrupted parent. Then it is in vain disputed by the sophists, whether the demerit, the guilt, or the depravity is contracted by the fall, for all these do actually exist; so that taking the words in a wide sense, you may say that the fall and disobedience of our first parents, and in them of the whole human race, by which all of them in like manner lost the image of God, depraved their nature, became the enemies of God, and contracted the guilt of temporal and eternal death; unless deliverance and reconciliation should take place by the Son of God, the Mediator.

Again, "all are dead by the offence of one man:" therefore his offence was the offence of all, but theirs by participation and IMPUTATION, otherwise they could not be said to be dead by the offence of one, but by many offences.

Although it is truly said that the first sin was committed by Adam, yet not as a single person but as the father of the whole human race, however it is not correct to say that original sin existed in Adam, or that Adam had original sin, for then the cause and effect, actual and original sin, would be manifestly confounded. The first sin of Adam, therefore, as we said before, must be viewed in a double aspect. In one respect it was the sin of Adam, and was not original sin, but actual, originating, that is, giving origin to the original sin of his posterity; in another respect it was the sin of his posterity, who were in his loins; so that in mass they committed the same sin, and hence IT IS IMPUTED TO THEM ALL. Thus this our fall pertains to our original sin.

Bellarmin's first proposition is, "that the first transgression of Adam, which is the transgression of the whole human race, is original sin, if by sin be meant an action." This is correct, if it only be added, If sin be taken for an action not of Adam alone, but of his posterity, who, in mass, sinned in Adam. For thus this action was ours, pertaining in the first place to our original sin.

We here close our extracts from these witnesses to the doctrine of imputation, as held by the Reformers. The careful reader can

not but be struck by the distinctness and uniformity of their views. At this time, when the doctrine itself is perverted, and the opinions of the Reformers and others are shamefully misrepresented, we should be glad to see the whole collection of testimony made by Rivet, translated and published in a volume.

ESSAY IX.

MELANCTHON ON THE NATURE OF SIN.*

REFLECTING men have always wondered, that as there is in most things in the universe so beautiful an order, there should exist so great confusion, so many crimes and calamities, together with diseases and death, in the human race. The philosophers, in attempting to account for these phenomena, have ascribed them partly to matter, partly to the will of man, and partly to fate, which they say is the necessary connection of the first cause with all second causes, whether physical or voluntary. The Manicheans, adopting a corrupt philosophy, professed certain insane opinions, equally dishonourable to God and injurious to morality; maintaining, that there were two eternal and independent principles, the one good and the other evil, and also the doctrine of necessity; by which opinions, the church in ancient times was very much agitated. It is the part of a pious mind to think and speak with reverence concerning God; and to embrace and hold fast those sentiments which are true, and friendly to piety and good morals, and which have been approved by the deliberate judgment of the judicious and pious in the church; and not to indulge vain curiosity, or a fondness for useless speculations, nor to enter into infinite labyrinths of disputation.

We ought, however, in the commencement, to lay it down as a certain principle, from which nothing should induce us to depart, that God is not the author of sin, that he does not will sin, nor approve of sin, nor impel the wills of others to choose sin: but that he is truly and awfully opposed to sin, which he has declared, not only by his word, in which eternal misery is threatened, but also by the unceasing manifestations of his wrath against it, in the dispensations of his Providence. And the Son of God, by becoming a victim for sin to appease the anger of his Father, has demonstrated in the most striking manner, by his death, that not God, but the devil, is the author of sin. Let it then be received as an undoubted truth, that sin was not created, nor ordained by God; but that it is a dreadful destruction of the divine work and order; and that the true cause of sin is the will of the devil, and the will of man, which

* This translation, from the “Common-Places” of Melancthon, was published in 1833.

freely apostatized from God, who neither willed nor approved their disobedience. Ingenious men have, on this subject, stated many inextricable questions; but omitting purposely these abstruse disquisitions, we declare that doctrine which is true, and confirmed by the testimonies of divine revelation, and which we embrace with all our hearts; although we do not undertake to answer all the subtle objections which may be brought up by disputatious men.

Now, that God is not the cause or approver of sin, is made evident by the following testimonies of scripture: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good." Gen. i. 31. That is, everything was pleasing to God, regular, and accordant with the plan of the divine mind; and so formed as to be profitable to man.

In Psalm v. 5, it is said, "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity." And in John viii. 44, it is said of Satan, "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it."

In the words of our Saviour just cited, a distinction is clearly implied between the substance of the evil spirit and his moral qualities. Satan himself, as to his substance, was the work of God, by whom all the angels of heaven were created, some of whom fell into sin; but a lie he has of himself, which he produced by the exercise of his own free will. And between these things there is no repugnance; for while the substance is upheld by God, the free agent may be the cause of his own sins, by abusing his liberty and apostatizing from God.

Another testimony may be found in Zech. viii. 17, "And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour, and love no false oath, for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord."

Now God is sincere in his professed hatred of sin: it cannot, therefore, be thought that he wills sin.

Again, 1 John xxii. 16, "The lust of the flesh is not of the Father, but of the world." And 1 John iii. 8, "He who committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning;" that is, the devil is the original author of sin. And in regard to the human race, we read in Rom. v. 12, "By man sin entered into the world;" that is, sin is not a thing created by God; but man, in the exercise of his own liberty, has turned away from God, and wasted the gifts of God, and has propagated this his ruin to posterity.

Nor do those words of scripture, where it is said, "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh," and other similar expressions, militate with the sentiments expressed above; for to those acquainted with the Hebrew idiom, it is well known that such expressions signify_permission only, and not an efficacious will; as when we pray, "Lead us not into temptation," the meaning is, do not suffer us to fall into emptation; or do not permit us to fall or to be overthrown by temptation.

It is here important, that we should have fixed in our minds, the true idea of sin, that we may be able clearly to distingu ish be

tween it and what is produced by God. Sin is the disturbance or confusion of the divine order; sin, therefore, in the simplest notion of it, is not a substance, nor anything positive, but a defect, or privation. Sin, as it exists in the mind, is darkness; that is, we have not the clear knowledge of divine things, nor do we yield a firm assent to the divine threatenings and promises. But sin, in the will, is aversion; that is, the heart is destitute of the fear of God, of confidence, and love towards him, and of that obedience of heart which the law of his nature demands, but is carried away with wandering desires which are opposed to God. Now, that those evils are properly defects, and not things created by God, is evi. dent enough. Instead of being his work, sin is the abominable destroyer of the order of his work. It does not follow that he is the author of sin, because he preserves in being the creature in whom it exists; but he is exceedingly displeased with sin, and sent his Son to appease his wrath, and to heal the wound made in our nature. Let it be kept in mind, therefore, that God is not the cause of that vitiosity with which we are born; nor can he will that which is evil, or at all approve it. But here a cavil, not uncommonly made, must be noticed. It is asked, if sin be nothing positive, but only a defect, is God angry at nothing? To which we would answer, that there is a great difference between a privation and a negation (inter nihil privativum et nihil negativum). A privation requires a subject, and is a destruction of something which properly belongs to that subject, and on account of which it is rejected as worthless. Thus the ruin of an edifice is a destruction of its frame, or a dissipation of its parts. So the depravity of our origin is a pollution and disorder of our faculties, which defect in our nature is the object of the divine hatred, and on account of which he is displeased with the being in whom it exists. The nature of privation may be illustrated by a bodily disease, in which the subject remains, but in a disordered state. On the other hand, a negation is that which requires no subject, as the house of Alexander is now nothing-a mere negation, for it has no existence. This simple illustration may be sufficient to shed more light on this subject to learners, without involving them in subtle disputations or inextricable labyrinths. Geometrical truths, by means of diagrams, may be presented to the eye; but it is not so with these metaphysical truths, which can only be understood by a gradual and attentive consideration. A man who is wounded, when beholding his wound, is certain that it is not a mere negation, but that the parts are really lacerated. So Paul, beholding the wickedness and vices of a Nero, grieves, and does not consider these things as mere negations, but as a most abominable ruin of a divine work. When in this light we view evil as a defect or privation, we never can think that sin is a thing which should be extenuated. As in man, considered as the workmanship of God, order is a part, and is the production of his power, and is pleasing to him, and conducive to the beauty and happiness of man, and is called an excellent thing, a