certain communion of him to whom it is imputed with the immediate author of the sin. And this communion may be of three kinds: either (1) voluntary, such as is between a criminal and his surety, in which case previous consent is necessary: thus the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, who voluntarily became surety for them, (Isa. liii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21); or (2) natural, such as is between a father and his children, (Ex. xx. 5): or (3) political, such as is between a king and his subjects. In the second and third modes of this communion, it is not necessary that he to whom the sins of another are imputed should first give his actual consent. This twofold communion, natural and moral or political, holds between us and Adam, as he was the father of us all and the prince and representative head of the whole human race. He was not a private but a public and representative person, in whom the law of nature and the command which was the test of obedience were proposed to the whole human nature; and who apostatizing, the whole human. nature at the same time fell in that one individual representative person, (in ipsa illa persona representativa,) whence that universal apostasy is deservedly imputed to the whole nature of man."*

"It is objected, that the sin of Adam was a single act, past long before we had existence. But the crime was common, since in the single act of Adam's sin were included the universal transgression of all men, and violation of all law. And hence, the stream of guilt remains, although the act has passed; as, for example, the guilt of a murder abides although the crime may have been committed twenty years ago. It is objected, that, in this case, the guilty person is supposed to remain; but Adam is long since dead. But we all became guilty in Adam. Since we were existing in his loins, in him we also sinned. (Cum in lumbis ejus existentes, in ipso quoque peccavimus.)"†

A single additional paragraph will illustrate the weapons which De Moor uses in refuting Placæus. "We listen with pleasure to Hoornbeek, expounding this subject:-'Do you ask

* De Moor upon Marck, cap. xv. 32. Lugd. Batav. 1765, Pars iii. p. 284. † Ibid. p. 285.

whence this sin is in us? The answer is at hand:-From the first common sin of Adam it is imputed to all men descending from Adam. In which view, it is necessary to know what person or condition Adam sustained, and in what manner the whole nature of man is to be accounted to have been so represented and confederated, that whatever he previously was, possessed, or did, is to be esteemed to have belonged to all men, and therefore the whole nature of man to have been in him. Adam was not only an individual person, but in him, as the root, and according to the law of generation, (et stirpis ratione,) the whole totality of our nature was accounted. This man stood as the root, the source, the head, the fountain, of the whole nature; and this by a double title,—as the natural head from whom the whole nature was to be propagated, (Acts xvii. 26; Gen. ii.;)— and as the moral head, in whose obedience or disobedience our universal nature stood or fell in an equal fortune with his. From the former is derived our nature; from the latter, its moral attitude. From the one it is that we are men; from the other, that we are such men, whether good or evil.'"*

It is objected, that we did not sin and fall in Adam as he was the natural root of mankind; else it might be said that all sin 12. Adam's because their immediate parents have sinned. To sin, and those this, Dickinson justly replies, "As Adam was but of our parents. once, and none of his descendants were at all, in a state of trial for confirmation and establishment in original righteousness and happiness; so, that covenant could be but once broken, either by himself or his posterity. We could not be guilty of original sin, in Adam, but only when he himself was guilty of it by eating the forbidden fruit. We are guilty, not merely as descendants from Adam, but as being naturally, as well as legally, in him when he violated the first covenant. We were, it is true, in the loins of our immediate parents during all their transgressions of God's law, as well as in the loins of Adam when he broke this covenant; but we could not be, in them, as we were in him, guilty of violating any terms of establishment in life and peace; for there were no such terms made * De Moor upon Marck, ut supra, p. 267.

with them. And, therefore, we could not, in them, forfeit a confirmation in a state of life and happiness, which was never proposed to them, either for themselves or us; nor could we, in them, bring upon ourselves the dreadful consequences of such forfeiture in our death and ruin."* The point here considered is important, and the objection may be embarrassing to some of our readers. We therefore add these considerations:

1. The objection implies, and arises out of, a misapprehension as to what it is in which that sin of Adam, which is imputed to us, consisted; as though it were the mere personal action of plucking and eating the forbidden fruit. This misapprehension has probably given rise to more objections to the doctrine of original sin, and been the consequent occasion of more errors on the subject, than any other doctrinal cause. Hence the objection, that we cannot feel remorse and penitence for this sin; and hence the consequent denial that, as imputed to and punished in us, it is crime. The primary,-the fundamental,—the original sin, is to be sought in the depths of man's nature,-in the hidden recesses of Adam's heart, unseen by any eye but that of his Maker. It consisted in revolt,-in apostasy from God. The action of plucking and eating the fruit was, in itself, as a mere act, a matter utterly insignificant. Its whole importance consists in the fact that, to finite intelligences, and to man himself, it detected the heart apostasy, and sealed the curse of God, incurred by that apostasy. Now, this sin of apostasy, though an act, is an act of such a nature as does not admit of repetition. It is like a fall, which should plunge a man irrecoverably to the very bottom of a precipice, or the profoundest depths of a gulf. He may, he must, remain fallen. But, to fall again, is impossible. Adam's sons are, and can but be, apostate. But, to suppose them anew to commit the deed, is, to suppose them to be still upright.

2. There are two classes of actions, which, in this objection, are confounded; but which should be carefully distinguished. Of these, one consists in such personal actions as result from the fact that the nature is of a given and determinate character.

* Dickinson on the Five Points, Presb. Board of Pub., p. 110.

These in no respect change the nature; nor indicate any change occurring in it; but constitute mere criteria by which the character and strength of its attributes may be known. After their occurrence, the nature flows on, unchanged, to posterity; conveying to them not the transient accidents which have thus arisen from it, but itself as essentially it is. To this class belong all those sins of our intermediate ancestors, which are here objected to us. These in no wise modify the nature; nor are they the fruits of any change taking place in it, as inherited by them; but are the evidences and fruits of its being what it is, in the persons by whom they are wrought; and to whom, therefore, they attach. The other class consists of such agency, as, springing from within, constitutes an action of the nature itself, by which its attitude is changed. The single case referrible to this class, is that of apostasy,-the voluntary self-depravation of a nature created holy. Here, as the nature flows downward, in the line of generation, it communicates to the successive members of the race, not only itself thus transformed, but, with itself, the moral responsibility which attaches inseparably to it, as active in the transformation wrought by it, and thus conveyed.

3. There is a great truth involved in the objection; although unapprehended by those who urge it. Had Adam-made as he was-been placed on probation without limit as to time, and had he remained upright, whilst one of his posterity became apostate, the crime and corruption thus introduced would have flowed to the family of the apostate; precisely as that of Adam does to us his seed. This is not the place to point out the wisdom and goodness of God, in choosing the dispensation under which man actually is, rather than that here supposed. But that is the only case, in which sin like Adam's,-apostasy, could have been predicable personally of any of our intermediate ancestry.

In short, "the sin of the world" which Adam committed and Christ came to take away,-apostasy, the embrace of corruption, and rejection of holiness, once wrought, is finished. The original action of apostasy begets a state of depravity and corruption, which abides. But the originating act cannot be repeated. The nature once revolted is revolutionized.

1. Pelagian

admissions.

CHAPTER XVII.

ORIGINAL SIN INHERENT-NATIVE DEPRAVITY.

THE fact of man's actual depravity admits of no question. It is asserted in the Scriptures. It is attested by all experience. And so overwhelming is the evidence, as to wring and Socinian from the most reluctant lips, ample testimony to its universality, its odious character and its power. Of this, we have seen an instructive example in the case of Dr. Edward Beecher. Compelled by the irresistible evidence of this truth, and misguided by an inveterate hostility against the doctrine of original sin, he takes refuge in the Platonic dream of pre-existence. Of the proof of man's deplorable depravity, Dr. Beecher says, "Indeed, so plain are the mournful realities, that the most eminent Unitarian divines do not hesitate to state them, with an eloquence and power which cannot be resisted. That I may avoid even the appearance of exaggeration, I will state the facts in the words of such men as President Sparks, Professor Norton, Dr. Burnap, and Dr. Dewey."*

After exhibiting the testimony of these writers, he describes the style in which the subject is treated by orthodox divines. "To illustrate their ideas of the activity and power of this depraved nature, they resort to the most striking material analogies. It is like a glowing furnace, constantly emitting flames and sparks; a fountain, sending out polluted streams. It is a seed or seed-plot of sin. Original sin, by which it is thus corrupted, is a stain or infection pervading all the powers of the soul. It is a noisome root, out of which do spring most abundantly all kinds of sin. . . . Nor does their language convey an idea at

*Conflict of Ages, p. 52.