We, therefore, hear a great deal of declamation respecting the impossibility of making a transfer of moral character, and respecting the impossibility of ever removing the guilt of a sinner; but if the exact meaning of these terms was apprehended, the supposed difficulty or absurdity would vanish. For, although personal acts cannot be transferred, the consequences or legal penalties of those acts may be transferred; and although the ill-desert of one man cannot be transferred to another, the punishment due to one can be inflicted on another.

But to return, Augustine says again, book xiv., c. 11, De Civitate Dei: "A duobus primis transmissum est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam in posteros obligatione peccati, et mortis necessitate transmissa." Which may be thus rendered into English: "From the first pair so great a sin has been transmitted, that by it human nature is changed for the worse; also the bond of iniquity and the necessity of death are transmitted to their posterity."

And this manner of speaking of original sin was not peculiar to Augustine; for we find the same sort of language in Bernard. When speaking of the first sin, he has the following words: "Aliena est quia in Adam omnes nescientes peccavimus; nostra, quia, etsi in alio, nos tamen peccavimus, et nobis justo Dei judicio imputatur." The meaning of which is, "That this first sin, of which he is here treating, was another's, inasmuch as in Adam we sinned; being unconscious of it, our own, inasmuch as, although by another, yet we ourselves have sinned, and in the just judgment of God it is imputed to us."

"Pec

Nicolas Lyra, who lived about four hundred years ago, speaks the same language when explaining the fifth of Romans. catum Adæ imputatur omnibus ab eo descendentibus, secundum vim generativam, quod sic sunt membra ejus, propter quod vocatur peccatum originale." A literal translation of which is, "The sin of Adam is imputed to all descending from him by natural generation, because they are his members, on which account it is called original sin."

And the later writers, until the council of Trent, do not deviate. from this language of the ancient church. Cajetan, commenting on the same (Romans v.), says, "The punishment of death is inflicted on him with his whole posterity; by which it is proved that the sin of which death is the punishment is imputed to him and to his whole posterity."

And even Bellarmine uses as strong language on the subject of imputation as any who went before him. "Adam," says he, " alone committed that (sin) by actual volition, but it is communicated to us by generation, in that mode in which it was possible for that which is past to be communicated, viz. by imputation."

It is scarcely necessary to adduce testimonies from early Protestant writers; for it is known to all in the least acquainted with the opinions of the reformers, that with one consent they held that

the sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity; and that in consequence of this imputation a corrupt nature was communicated to all his natural descendants. We could fill volumes with citations in proof of this fact, but it is unnecessary. Indeed, until Socinus arose, no one connected with the reformation ever intimated a doubt concerning the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity. This ingenious but heretical man utterly denied, as all his followers do, the whole doctrine of original sin. His words are," Although all the posterity of Adam are liable to eternal death, this is not because the sin of Adam is imputed to them, but because they are his natural descendants; so that their doom to death does not arise from imputation, but from the propagation of the human race."

It is now, by many who would be esteemed orthodox, and Calvinistic too, considered so absurd to hold the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, that they will not even condescend to argue the point and demonstrate its falsehood. If these be correct in their views of the subject, it must create some surprise that all theologians, from the days of Augustine, who were not acknowledged heretics, believed firmly in this doctrine, and considered it as fundamental in the Christian system. Is it certainly the fact that these modern impugners of the ancient doctrine of the church understand the scriptures better than all who have gone before them? Or is it undoubted that they are endowed with a perspicacity so much superior to that of Augustine, Calvin, Owen and Edwards, that what these thought after profound consideration might be defended as reasonable, is so absurd as not to merit a refutation? Now we confess ourselves to be of the number of those who believe, whatever reproach it may bring upon us from a certain quarter, that if the doctrine of imputation be given up the whole doctrine of original sin must be abandoned. And if this doctrine be relinquished, then the whole doctrine of redemption must fall, and what may then be left of Christianity they may contend for that will; but for ourselves, we shall be of opinion that what remains will not be worth a serious struggle.

But we must return to our proper subject. It will next be satisfactory to know by what sort of arguments the ancient theologians defended the doctrine of original sin. And although we will not vouch for the soundness of every interpretation of scripture which the ancient expositors gave, yet it cannot but be satisfactory to the advocates of this doctrine now, that as far back as we can trace the history of opinions, the same views were entertained of the meaning of the principal texts which bear on this point as are now maintained.

The fathers, then, supported the doctrine of original sin by such texts as Gen. vi. 5.-xiii. 21. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Ambrose, in his re

marks on this text, does not confine it to the antediluvians, but considers it a description of human nature in every age, and extends it to persons in every period of human life: for he says, “Even the child of a day old is not without sin, for infancy cannot be exempt from sin on account of the infirmity of the body."

Another text which they adduced in proof of original sin was Gen. xvii. 14. "And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant." On this text Augustine remarks, "That the soul which is not regenerated shall perish, since he, with all others, sinned in Adam." It seems that they interpreted the breach of the covenant to have reference to the covenant made with Adam, and not the covenant of circumcision. For thus we find Bede commenting on this text, "Not the covenant of circumcision, which an infant that could neither will good nor evil could not break, though his parents might; but that covenant is signified which God entered into with the first man, and which every one who has only lived a day upon earth has violated, and so stands in need of a saving remedy."

Job xiv. 4. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one," is another text on which the ancient theologians relied for the proof of original sin. As they followed the Seventy, however, they found more to their purpose in this text than is contained in the Hebrew. For in the Greek version the text reads thus, Τὶς γὰρ καθαρὸς ἔσται ἀπὸ ῥύπου; ἀλλ' οὐθεῖς, ἐὰν καὶ μία ἡμέρα ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Which literally translated is, "For who is clean from filth? not one, if even his life has been but of one day on the earth." Hence, we find Augustine, in reference to this text, saying, "The stain of the vitiated root is diffused through the branches, being transmitted by natural generation; so that there is not an infant of one day old free from the guilt of sin, unless saved by unmerited grace. For he who has no sin properly of his own, has derived to him the sin of another, concerning which the apostle speaks where he says, by one man sin entered into the world, &c."

The next argument the fathers derived from Psalm li. 5. "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." It was left for modern critics to discover that David was here bewailing the sinfulness of his mother; such an idea never seems to have entered the mind of any of the ancient commentators. They argue thus from the text. If David, that most holy king, and born of pious parents, contracted pollution in his conception, then certainly the same must be true of all other men. Thus reasoned Origen, Basil the Great, Theodoret, Rufin, Cassiodorus, Euthymius and Remigius, in their scholia on this text. Likewise Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Faustus, Isychius, Gregory the Great, Alcuin, Bede, and every other orthodox commentator for seventeen centuries after Christ. They who still believe that the Psalmist is here speaking of the sin of his birth, notwithstanding the learned criticisms which have recently appeared on this text,

have the comfort of knowing that they are supported by the opinions of all the ancients and all the moderns whose opinions carry weight in matters of this kind.

Another text adduced by the ancient advocates of this doctrine is Is. xliii. 3. "And wast called a transgressor from the womb." On which Cyril, on Hosea, makes several remarks, tending to show the original depravity of man.

But let us now come to the New Testament; and here the first text which the fathers urge in proof of original sin is John iii. 3, 6. "Verily, verily I say unto you, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." From which it was argued. that whatever was carnally propagated could only savour of carnal things, which in order to become spiritual must be born of the spirit; without spiritual regeneration it was impossible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Augustine often makes use of this text in his controversy with the Pelagians; and it is used in the same manner by Prosper, and by Gregory the Great. But the passage of scripture on which they depended above all for the support of the doctrine of original sin, was the fifth of Romans, from the twelfth verse to the end of the chapter. "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed on all men, because that (or in whom) all have sinned."

Ver. 14. "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."

Ver. 18. "Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."

Ver. 19. "For as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners."

From these passages they reasoned in the following manner: That sin which the apostle so describes as that which has brought death on all men ;-that by it all men have sinned;—and by it have been constituted sinners, even those who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression (that is, have not committed actual sin); and in consequence of this sin all are become subject to death and condemnation; therefore, this sin, although committed by Adam alone, as it was a personal act, yet may be considered as the sin of human nature, since he stood as the representative of us all, who were then included in his loins; and are all therefore laid under an obligation to suffer the punishment of his sin.

The fathers also were particular in noticing that Adam was here called the type of Christ, whence they inferred, that as we are justified by the imputation and not the imitation of Christ's obedience, so the disobedience of Adam becomes ours, not by imitation but by imputation. They, moreover, remarked, that the particles i' (in whom) teach us that the posterity of Adam sinned in him: or if you prefer rendering these words, because that, or inasmuch as, all have sinned, they must contain a sufficient reason for the death of all, infants as well as others; and therefore the word all must

be considered as including infants; when it is said, therefore, all have sinned, it will follow that infants also have sinned. This method of reasoning is pursued by Augustine in many different parts of his works; and the same method of reasoning from this passage is followed by Theodoret, by Prosper, by Faustus, by Gennadius, and also by the Carthaginian and Arausicanian councils.

Another passage of scripture which the ancient theologians considered conclusive, on the subject of original sin, was Rom. vii., where Paul speaks of "a law in his members warring against the law of his mind. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. For to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not." The necessity of the aids of divine grace is argued from this passage by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine, in more places than one. This father, indeed, gives us two distinct expositions of the apostle's meaning in the aforecited words. According to the first of these, the conflict here described is between conscience and sinful desires drawing the soul to evil; but according to the latter, the struggle is between the sinful nature which remains in the regenerate, and the new man or principle of grace, implanted by the Holy Spirit. But in either sense it furnishes strong proof of the natural proclivity of man to evil but especially in the latter sense, in which a remaining leaven of iniquity is found in the regenerate, continually hindering his holy exercises, it furnishes an undoubted proof of the depravity of our nature.

They also appealed to 1 Cor. xv. 22, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." On this text the writer of certain ancient commentaries, which have been ascribed to Ambrose, says, "Paul says this because as Adam by sinning found death, so he subjected all his posterity to the same punishment; so also Christ by not sinning, overcame death and acquired life for all those who are of his body; that is, the resurrection." And again, "As all die in Adam, whether they be just or unjust, so also all, whether believers or unbelievers, shall be raised from the dead by Christ; but they who believe not, to punishment."

Augustine expresses his views of the import of this passage thus: "The opinion of the apostle is here clearly exhibited, that none are subject to death but through Adam, and that none enter into eternal life unless by Christ. For by the word all repeated in this verse, we are to understand in the first instance, all who are naturally descended from Adam, and in the second, all who are united to Christ by a spiritual regeneration: so then it is declared that none die except by their connection with Adam, and none are made alive but those who are quickened in Christ." The argument is simply this, as all are vivified in Christ, in like manner all die in Adam; but Christ vivifies those for whom he has merited the forgiveness of sin, and on whom he bestows a new life by regeneration: therefore Adam, in like manner, by his sin, has merited death for all his