“…she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat… and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons… And the Lord God called unto Adam… ‘Where art thou?’ And he said, ‘…I hid myself.’… Unto the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception… And unto Adam He said, ‘…cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life…’… Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden…”
Gen. 3:6-10, 16-17, 23
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Rom. 5:12
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Westminster 3
On Mediate Imputation 14+
Proponents 10+
Moderates 5
Contra 6
.
.
Intro
More will be forthcoming.
.
.
Mediate Imputation in Relation to the Westminster Standards
Quotes
Order of
Cunningham
C. Hodge
Warfield
.
1800’s
William Cunningham
The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), ‘Calvin & Beza’, p. 382
“It has been made a question among the Presbyterians of the United States, though we do not remember that the point has been mooted in this country, whether the Westminster Confession condemns the view of Placæus; and the general opinion there seems to be, that there is nothing in the Confession so precise and definite as to make it unwarrantable for one who believes only in mediate and consequent imputation to subscribe it.
The leading statement upon the subject is this (ch. 5, section 3):
“They (our first parents) being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.”
Now this statement, read in the light of the discussions which Placæus occasioned, is certainly vague and indefinite, and resembles much more closely the deliverances given on this subject in the Confession of the sixteenth century than that embodied in the Consensus [Formula Helvetica] of 1675. The Confession was completed about the end of 1646, not quite two years after the [French] National Synod of Charenton. It is probable that the members of the Assembly were not yet much acquainted with the discussions which had been going on in France, and were in consequence not impressed with the necessity of being minute and precise in their deliverance upon this subject.
It is a curious circumstance, that both in the Larger and the Shorter Catechisms, there are statements upon this point more full and explicit, and more distinctly exclusive of the views of Placæus. The Larger Catechism (Q. 22) says:
“The covenant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, in that first transgression;”
and both Catechisms, more distinctly than the Confession, represent the guilt of Adam’s first sin as the first, and in some sense the leading, element in the sinfulness of man’s natural condition. More than a year elapsed between the completion of the Confession and that of the Catechisms; and we think it by no means unlikely, though we are not aware of any actual historical evidence bearing upon the point, that during this interval the members of the Assembly may have got fuller information concerning the bearing of the discussions going on in France, and that this may have led them to bring out somewhat more fully and explicitly in the Catechisms the views which, in common with the great body of Calvinistic divines, they undoubtedly entertained about the imputation of Adam’s sin. Every one who has read Placæus’s book will see, that he would, without hesitation, have subscribed the statement in the Confession, but that he would have had extreme difficulty in devising any plausible pretence for concurring in what has been quoted from the Larger Catechism.†”
† [The last sentence may be true of Placaeus, though this should be confirmed, but numerous other theologians either holding to mediate imputation, or sympathetic with it, could affirm what Larger Catechism Q. 22 affirms.]
.
Charles Hodge
‘Retrospect of the History of the Princeton Review’ in The Biblical Repertory & Princeton Review: Index Volume (Philadelphia: Peter Walker, 1870–1871), pp. 22–23
“It is not enough that a doctrine be erroneous, or that it be dangerous in its tendency; if it be not subversive of one or more of the constituent elements of the Reformed faith, it is not incompatible with the honest adoption of our Confession. It cannot be denied that ever since the Reformation, more or less diversity in the statement and explanation of the doctrines of Calvinism has prevailed in the Reformed Churches. It is equally notorious that for fifty or sixty years such diversities have existed and been tolerated in our own church; nay, that they still exist, and are avowed by Old-school men.
If a man holds that all mankind, since the fall of Adam, and in consequence of his sin, are born in a state of condemnation and sin, whether he accounts for that fact on the ground of immediate or mediate imputation, or on the realistic theory, he was regarded as within the integrity of the system. In like manner, if he admitted the sinner’s inability, it was not considered as a proper ground of discipline that he regarded that inability as moral, instead of natural as well as moral…
We do not say that the diversities above referred to are unimportant. We regard many of them as of great importance. All we say is, that they have existed, and been tolerated in the purest Calvinistic churches, our own among the rest.”
.
B.B. Warfield
‘Imputation’, ‘6. La Place & Later Theologians & Schools’
“It [mediate imputation] was adopted by theologians like Wyttenbach, Endemann, Stapfer, Roell, Vitringa, Venema; and after a while it found its way through Britain to America, where it has had an interesting history — forming one of the stages through which the New England Theology (q.v.) passed on its way to its ultimate denial of the quality of sin involving guilt to anything but the voluntary acts of a free agent; and finally becoming one of the characteristic tenets of the so-called ‘New School Theology’ of the Presbyterian Churches [which were governed by the Westminster Confession and catechisms].”
.
.
On the History & View of Mediate Imputation
Order of
Articles 7
Book 1
Quote 1
French Synods 2
America 1
Latin 2
.
Articles
1800’s
Cunningham, William – pp. 379-90 in The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), ‘Calvin & Beza’
Cunningham interprets Stapfer as holding to mediate imputation (pp. 383-84); Shedd below provides quotes that Stapfer upheld an immediate imputation (p. 164 fn.).
Shedd, William G.T. – pp. 158-66 in A History of Christian Doctrine 15th ed. (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1863), vol. 2, ch. 7, ‘Anthropology of the Reformers’
Shedd provides quotes that Stapfer and Jonathan Edwards upheld an immediate imputation (p. 164 fn.).
Dabney, Robert L. – pp. 340-34 of Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1972) at Calvin & Calvinism
Dabney draws upon Stapfer and argues against Charles Hodge.
.
1900’s
Warfield, B.B. – ‘6. La Place & Later Theologians & Schools’ in ‘Imputation’ in ch. 10, Studies in Theology
Berkhof, Louis – pp. 153-54 & 157 in History of Christian Doctrines (1937; Banner of Truth, 1969), chs. 4-5
.
2000’s
Storms, Sam – ‘Mediate or Immediate Imputation?’ (2009) 30 paragraphs
Storms, largely following the lead of John Murray, analyzes especially Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin.
Taylor, Matt – ‘The Mediate View of Imputation of Sin’ (2016) 3 paragraphs
Taylor concisely summarizes the view from three secondary sources: C. Hodge, A.H. Strong and J. Miley.
.
Book
2000’s
Jenkins, David Llewellyn – Saumur Redux: Josué de la Place & the Question of Adam’s Sin Ref (Leaping Cat Press, 2008) 62 pp.
Jenkins is supportive of la Place’s teaching. Here is a helpful review of the pamphlet by Stephen Hampton.
.
Quote
William Cunningham
Historical Theology 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), vol. 1, pp. 510-11
“Those, then, who hold the Calvinistic view of the state of the case with respect to the moral character and condition of men, may not unreasonably be asked whether they can give any other account of the origin, or any explanation of the cause, of this fearful state of things. Now, in the history of the discussions which have taken place upon this subject, we can trace four pretty distinct courses which have been taken by theologians who all admitted the total native depravity of mankind:
First, some have refused to attempt any explanation of the state of the case, beyond the general statement that Scripture represents it as in some way or other connected with, and resulting from, the fall of Adam, and have denied, expressly or by plain implication, the common Calvinistic doctrine of imputation.
A second class, comprehending the great body of Calvinistic divines, have regarded it 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.
A third class, while refusing to admit in words the doctrine of imputation, as commonly stated by orthodox divines, have yet put forth such views of the connection between Adam and his posterity, and of the bearing of his first sin upon them, as embody the sum and substance of all, or almost all, that the avowed defenders of the doctrine of imputation intend by it.
And, lastly, there is a fourth class, who, while professing in words to hold the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin, yet practically and substantially neutralize it or explain it away, especially by means of a distinction they have devised between immediate or antecedent, and mediate or consequent imputation—denying the former, which is the only true and proper imputation, and admitting only the latter.
It is quite plain that it is only the first two of these four divisions of theological opinion that can be regarded as important, or even real and substantial. For, on the one hand, those who belong to the third class… may yet be really ranked under the second class, because they admit the whole substance of what the doctrine of imputation is usually understood to include or involve; while, on the other hand, those who belong to the fourth class, admitting imputation in words, but denying it in reality and substance, belong properly to the first class.”
.
French Reformed National Synods
Quotes
ed. John Quick,Synodicon in Gallia reformata, or, The Acts, Decisions, Decrees & Canons of those Famous National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France (London: Parkhurst, 1692)
Synod 28, of Charenton, 1644-1645, ch. 14, 10. Article of General Matters, pp. 473-74
“There was a report made in the synod of a certain writing, both printed and manuscript, holding forth this doctrine, that the whole nature of original sin consisted only in that corruption, which is hereditary to all Adam’s posterity, and residing originally in all men, and denies the imputation of his first sin. This synod condemns the said doctrine as far as it restrains the nature of original sin to the sole hereditary corruption of Adam’s posterity, to the excluding of the imputation of that first sin by which he fell, and interdicts on pain of all Church-censures all pastors, professors, and others, who shall treat of this question, to depart from the common received opinion of the Protestant Churches, who (over and besides that corruption) have all acknowledged the imputation of Adam’s first sin unto his posterity. And all synods and colloquies, who shall hereafter proceed to the reception of scholars into the holy ministry, are obliged to see them sign and subscribe this present act.”
.
Synod 29, of Loudun, 1659-1660, ch. 8, Observations upon reading the last National Synod of Charenton, 1644, p. 532
“11. On reading that article of the last national synod concerning Original Sin, diverse provinces demanding with great importunity that this Assembly would be pleased to moderate it; this decree was made, That for the future all pastors and proposans who should offer themselves unto the holy ministry, shall be only obliged to subscribe unto the Tenth and Eleventh Article of the Confession of Faith held by all the Reformed Churches of this Kingdom; and in the mean while all persons are forbidden to preach or print anything against the imputation mentioned by the said synod in that article before named, nor shall anything more or less be changed in it.”
[Confession of Faith (1559), “Article 10: We believe that all the offspring of Adam are infected with the contagion of Original Sin; which is a vice hereditary to us by propagation, and not only by imitation, as the Pelagians asserted, whose errors are detested by us. Nor do we think it necessary to inquire how this sin comes to be derived from one unto another: For it is sufficient that those things which God gave to Adam were not given to him alone, but also to all his posterity; and therefore we, in his person, being deprived of all those good Gifts, are fallen into this poverty and malediction.
Article 11: We believe that this stain of Original Sin, is sin indeed; for it has that mischievous power in it as to condemn all mankind, even infants that are unborn, as yet in their mother’s womb, and God Himself does account it such; yea, and that even after baptism, as to the filth thereof, it is always sin. Howbeit, they who are the children of God shall never be condemned for it, because that God, of his rich grace and sovereign mercy, does not impute it to them. Moreover, we say, that it is such a depravedness as does continually produce the fruits of malice and rebellion against God; so that even the choicest of God’s saints, although they do resist it, yet are they defiled with very many infirmities and offences, so long as they live in this world.”]
.
In America
Quote
B.B. Warfield
‘Imputation’, ‘6. La Place & Later Theologians & Schools’
“La Place’s innovation was as a matter of course condemned by the Reformed world, formally at the Synod of Charenton (1644-1645) and in the Helvetic Consensus (1675) and by argument at the hands of the leading theologians — Rivetus, Turretin, Maresius, Driessen, Leydecker, and Marck.
But the tendencies of the time were in its favor and it made its way. It was adopted by theologians like Wyttenbach, Endemann, Stapfer, Roell, Vitringa, Venema; and after a while it found its way through Britain to America, where it has had an interesting history — forming one of the stages through which the New England Theology (q.v.) passed on its way to its ultimate denial of the quality of sin involving guilt to anything but the voluntary acts of a free agent; and finally becoming one of the characteristic tenets of the so-called “New School Theology” of the Presbyterian Churches.
Thus it has come about that there has been much debate in America upon “imputation,” in the sense of the imputation of Adam’s sin, and diverse types of theology have been framed, especially among the Congregationalists and Presbyterians, centering in differences of conception of this doctrine. Among the Presbyterians, for example, four such types are well marked, each of which has been taught by theologians of distinction. These are
(1) the ‘Federalistic,’ characterized by its adherence to the doctrine of ‘immediate imputation,’ represented, for example, by Dr. Charles Hodge;
(2) the ‘New School,’ characterized by its adherence to the doctrine of ‘mediate imputation,’ represented, for example, by Dr. Henry B. Smith;
(3) the ‘Realistic,’ which teaches that all mankind were present in Adam as generic humanity, and sinned in him, and are therefore guilty of his and their common sin, represented, for example, by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd; and
(4) one which may be called the ‘Agnostic,’ characterized by an attempt to accept the fact of the transmission of both guilt and depravity from Adam without framing a theory of the mode of their transmission or of their relations one to the other, represented, for example, by Dr. R. W. Landis.”
.
Latin Articles
1700’s
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – pp. 347-54 in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms (d. 1722)
On the history of the issue, see pp. 352-54.
De Moor, Bernard – ch. 15, section 32 in A Continuous Commentary on John Marck’s Compendium of Didactic & Elenctic Christian Theology (Leiden, 1761-71), vol. 3, pp. 260-87
.
.
Proponents
Order of
Articles 5
Quotes 2
Latin 3+
.
Articles
1600’s
Placeus, Joshua – pt. 2, ch. 12, ‘That the imputation of that first actual sin cannot be elicited from the confessions of the Reformed Churches’ in On the Imputation of the First Sin of Adam in Works (d. 1655; 1699), vol. 1, pp. 443-60 Latin
Baxter, Richard – pp. 144-49 & 172-79 of Two Disputations of Original Sin (London: Robert Gibbs, 1675) at Calvin & Calvinism
Baxter argues against immediate imputation and defends a form of mediate imputation, despite him disagreeing with some prominent mediate imputationists. Baxter’s discussion, set in the purpose of a different question, is complex and polemical, and therein difficult.
.
1700’s
ed. Heppe, Heinrich – pp. 333-34 of Reformed Dogmatics ed. Bizer, trans. Thomson (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007)
Heppe (d. 1879) says that the most famous opponent of the “prevalent view”, that is of “direct imputation,” besides Placaeus, was Daniel Whitby (d. 1726; an Anglican Arminian, later with Unitarian tendencies). Samuel Endemann (1727-1789) was a professor at Marburg, Germany, in the reformed tradition. Heppe provides his list of five arguments typically given for direct imputation, which Endemann then refutes by number.
See Heppe’s larger context on original sin and imputation (pp. 330-36), which favors immediate imputation.
Venema, Herman
pp. 517-32 in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), ch. 31, Effects of the Fall
Venema gives the most detailed defense of mediate imputation in English, it appears.
sect. 39-49 in Disputes on the Covenant of Works, Mediate or Immediate Imputation, Active & Passive Obedience of Christ, & General & Particular Decrees of Predestination trans. AI by Nosferatu (Leeuwarden: van Dessel, 1735), pp. 43-50 Dutch
Venema (1697-1787) was a Dutch reformed professor of theology at Franeker.
.
1800’s
Smith, Henry Boynton – ch. 7, ‘Of So-Called Mediate Imputation’ & p. 325 in System of Christian Theology (NY: A.C. Armstrong, 1884), pp. 314-323, 325 See also his larger discussion of Original Sin starting in ch. 4, p. 283. ToC
Quotes
Order of
Vermigli & Augustine
Tronchin
.
1500’s
Peter Martyr Vermigli
Most Learned & Fruitful Commentaries of Dr. Peter Martyr Vermilius... (d. 1562; London: 1568), Commentary on Romans, ch. 5
On Rom. 5:12, pp. 110-14
“That man was the first Adam, who was as a certain common mass or lump, wherein was contained all mankind: which lump being corrupted, we cannot be brought forth into this world, but with corruption and uncleanness. And although Eve transgressed before the man, yet the beginning of sinning is ascribed unto Adam: for that succession is attributed unto men, and not unto women… But this is now the scope of the apostle, to teach out of what thing as from the ground and beginning sin was by propagation traduced into mankind.
…
For in every sin are two things to be considered. The action or wicked affection, which is as it were the matter: and the offense or obligation to punishment, which they call reatus, that is, guiltiness. And original sin herein differs from those sins which they call actuall, for that in them [actual sins] the matter abides not still. For so soon as a man has either committed adultery, or spoken blasphemy, those actions straightway as soon as the thing is done cease to be, neither are any more extant. Only there remains the offence against God and guiltiness. Wherefore seeing by faith and repentance the obligation unto punishement, or offence against God is remitted, we will easily grant that the whole sin is abolished.
But in original sin the consideration is far otherwise: for the matter thereof passes not away. For every one of us has experience in himself, that corruption of nature remains in us: seing that yet also we continually fall into sins, and are both in body and mind untoward to things pertaining to God: which sin yet unto the faithful are not imputed. For the guiltiness and offense against God is in baptism through faith in Christ forgiven, although the matter of sin do still remain. Which matter, although in holy men it be broken and weakened, yet we shall not be perfectly rid thereof, till we be dead.
And forasmuch as men-regenerate beget children, not by that they are regenerate, but by nature and the flesh, thereof it comes that the children also of the believers are born obnoxious unto original sin. For into them is poured the same vitiate and corrupt nature that is in the parents: when as yet on the other side, forgivenees or imputation, which are apprehended by faith, cannot be poured into them.
For the better expli∣cation hereof, Augustine brings two similitudes:
One is of grains of corn: which although they are sown into the ground being purged of their leaves, stalks, chaff and ears, yet they spring up again with all these things: which hereof comes to pass, for that that cleansing comes not to those grains by nature, but by the art and industry of men. And forasmuch as the corn springs not of these principles of art and industry, but of nature, it must needs be that when they are sprung up, they follow the order not of human industry but of their own nature.
The second similitude is of a man, y• is circumcised: who notwithstanding begets a son with his foreskin. And this hereof comes, for that circumcision was not in the father by nature, but by a certain force added from without.
And seing that children are not procreated by that outward force, but by an inward strength of nature, it is of necessity that when they are begotten they follow the order of nature. And therfore we bring forth no other children, but such as we are ourselues. Wherefore seeing we have in us the contagiousness of original sin, they undoubtedly also cannot be without it. But we cannot communicate unto our children the remission and forgiveness of that sin. For, that is to be hoped for at God’s hands only.
…
Now seeing I have declared what the apostle means by sin, and by which one man, it entered into the world, there remains to consider by what means it was spread abroad. This is a matter obscure and very hard, and therefore I do not think to stand long about it. But forasmuch as the word of God most plainly teaches that such a sin there is, and that it descends into our posterity, although we understand not the manner and way, how it is poured into them, yet we ought to give place unto the truth and not to be too much careful or to trouble ourselues more than needs touching the way and manner, which is hard to be known, and may with out danger be unknown. Howbeit I think it not amiss to declare those ways and means which I have observed amongst the ecclestical writers: whose opinions touching this matter are four in number.
The first is of those which thought that we receive of our parents the souls together with the bodies, that even as God by human seed creates the body, so also of the same creates He the soul… Whose arguments… I judge indeed probable: but yet not of necessity…
[The second view is not labeled and might be another form of traducianism.]
The third way is that God therfore creates the soul with such a sin or defect, for that it shall be the soul of a man now damned, and set under the curse. Such a soul say they, God creates as is required to such a man… this fond device is of every man rejected: lest we should seem to make God absolutely the author of sins.
The fourth maner is by the consents of many men received, and seems very likely to be true: namely, that the soul is not created with some [sin], but straightway draws unto it sin so soon as ever it is adjoined unto the body derived from Adam…
…
‘For that all men have sinned.’
This might have seemed very sharp and hard, that for the sin only of the first man all men should die. But Paul shows that this is justly done, because all men have sinned. About this particle ᾧ [which is neuter or masculine] which properly signifies in quo, that is, ‘in which,’ and is englished, ‘For that,’ is no small controversy how it ought to be taken.
Some will haue it to be referred unto ‘sin’ [previously in Rom. 5:12, namely Adam’s first actual sin, which interpretation lends itself to an immediate imputation]. But the Greek word ἁμαρτία [sin] which went before it, seems to be against that. For it is [in] the feminine gender. Howbeit, it may be that Paul had a respect unto the other word παράπτωμα [offense, in v. 15 ff.], which is [in] the neuter gender, which word he afterward oftentimes uses, although it be counted a fault in speach to refer the relative to things coming after…
…[Vermigli discusses the translation “in whom”.] But touching this matter, I will not much contend.
For I think that ᾧ is a particle-causal, so that the sense is, Therefore has death gone over all men, because all men have sinned. For Chrisostom says: That when Adam fell, all other men also, which did not eat of the fruit were touched. And he thinks that Paul, as a wise physician, having the disease set before him, abides not in those things which be circumstances about it, or do follow it, but comes to the principal ground and first cause thereof. Therefore do all men die, because all men have sinned. Neither ought we to think that here is meant that all men do sin by some certain action: for that can have no place in children. But it is all one as if he had said, Now they are bondslaves unto sin, and are counted guilty thereof…
By those things also which are written unto the Hebrews may be declared, how we have sinned in the fall of Adam. For there we read that Levi paid tenths in the loins of Abraham. After the selfsame manner also may here be understood that we were polluted in the loins and in the mass of Adam…
…These things… in very deed… wholly confirm our sentence: wherein we say that Paul in this place takes sin most amply, so that it comprehends both the root, and all the fruits thereof. But I marvel how these men [who advocate for orginal sin being propagated from children’s imitation of their parents] go about to pluck away original vice from the nature of sin. For sin according to the common definition, they say, is whatsoever is spoken, done or thought against the Law of God, and this can have no place in children. But they consider not that in this definition is not all sin uniuersally contained. And therefore we before signified that sin is otherwise to be defined: so that that is said to be sin which any manner of way is against the Law and will of God… But to this we answered before: that the guiltyness indeed is forgiven unto the believers, howbeit the corrupt substance remains: which, if Christ were not a helper unto us, should of his own nature condemn us. For seeing it turns us away from the rule of the Law of God, it ought to be taken to be in very deed sin…
‘Where no law is, sin is not imputed.’
…This imputation or reputation is to be referred unto men, which were so miserable and blind that of themselves they could not so much as know sins, so far were they of that they could beware of sins, so utterly obscure was at that time the light of nature: but God imputed those sins unto them, and that not unworthily: for that blindness happened through their own default. And that God imputed those sins unto them, He Himself many ways declared. For He both by the flood destroyed the whole world, and complained unto Noah that all flesh had corrupted their way, and that the heart of man was prone unto sin even from his childhood. He reproved Cain of murder: and took vengeance upon the Sodomites…
‘That death reigned’
…And he therefore added that ‘death reigned from Adam even to Moses,’ to declare that there was sin in the world. For death and sin follow one the other inseperably: and sin and death infer and bring in one the other. Hereby are confuted those which contend that infants are without sin: and say that for that cause they die, for that by reason of the sin of Adam they are under the condition of mortality, being otherwise themselves innocent and clean from sin.”
.
On v. 19, pp. 118-126
‘That by the obedience of one man, many are made just’
…
But first I thought it good to declare the definition of original sin.
…
The third opinion [which Vermigli approves] is, that the lust or concupiscence which is spread abroad in the flesh and members, is original sin. Of which opinion was Augustine, as appears by his book of the merits and remission of sins, and by many other places: whome the Schoolmen have interpreted to have meant not only of the concupiscence of the grosser parts of the mind, but also of the frowardness of the will…
Nether did Augustine by lust, understand the act of lusting: but the ability, prones and ready disposition to do evil. Which vices are not always known in children, but so far forth as their age does utter it… And he says that this concupiscence is drawn by generation, because we have all sinned in Adam. For he thinks that all mankind was in Adam as in one lump. And because in him nature is corrupt by reason of sin, we cannot draw thereof but only a corrupt nature. For of thorns are not gathered grapes, nor of brambles, figs…
If thou demand of Augustine whether he thinks that this concupiscence, which he says is original sin, be voluntary, he answers that it may be called voluntary, because the sin which our first parents committed was voluntary: but in us it cannot be called voluntary, because we have not taken it upon us by our own election, except paradventure it may so be called, because it is not put into us violently.
Pigghius inveighs against this opinion: for thus he says, If the sin of the first man has corrupted man’s nature, such an effect ought to be natural unto sin. For there was nothing in that first transgression, which had the mean to corrupt nature more than other sins. Wherefore we shall of necessity grant that our nature is corrupted, not only by the fault of the the first parents, but also by the sins of all our progenitors: which thing seems very absurd unto Pigghius, that we should be so much the more corrupt, how much we are after them.
But this chief point, whether the sins of all parents be traduced into their posterity, I omit at this present, and will speak thereof toward the end, so much as shall be thought meet. In the mean time I deny that which this man takes for a ground, namely, that corruption is the natural effect of sin. For the reason thereof is rather taken of the iustice of God: whereby the grace of the spirit and heavenly gifts, wherewith man was endowed before his fall, were removed from him when he had sinned. And this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God, although the blame be [is] to be ascribed to the transgression of the first man: lest a man should straightway say that God is the cause of sin. For when he had once withdrawn his gifts, wherewith He had adorned man, straightway vices and corruptions followed of their own accord, which were before far from the condition of man.
…
And I myself when I consider these things am much delighted with Augustine’s answer which he uses against the Pelagians, when he was in hand with this selfsame cause which we are now in hand with. For the Pelagians objected unto him two arguments somewhat subtle and hard. One was, how it can be that God, which of his goodness forgives us our own sins, will impute unto any other men’s sins?…
To these things Augustine… dissolves both the arguments. For to the first he answers that God is the chief good thing, nether does He (as these men allege) in original sin impute unto us another man’s sin, but our own iniquity, which sticks unto our nature, even from the very beginning…
Therefore do I [Vermigli] allege these things, to show that it is lawful for me if I will to use the same answer which this father used first, and to say unto Pigghius: Let us suffer God to defend Himself: he needs none of our defense that He should not be counted unjust or cruel. Let vs believe the Scriptures, which cry everywhere that we are born corrupt and vitiate. Which thing also both death and an infinite heap of miseries do manifestly declare unto us: which things undoubtedly God would not lay upon the children of Adam, unless there were in them some sin deserving punishment.
…
But let Pigghius confer that his opinion with this which he impugns. This affirms that God condemns vice and corruption, which it puts to be in children newly born. But Pigghius makes children guilty, and condemns them of that fault and sin which is not in them: But only is that which Adam our first parent committed. For otherwise he counts those children most innocent. But whether of these is more far from reason, and more abhors even also from human laws: to punish an innocent for another man’s sin, or to condemn him, which has in himself a cause why to be condemned?
…
This opinion of Anselm concerning the lack and want of original justice, does in very deed nothing differ from the sentence of Augustine, wherein he calls original sin lust: but that which in Anselm is spoken somewhat more expressedly is more obscurely wrapped in the word ‘concupiscence’. But because this want of original justice may so be taken, as though we understood only the privation of the gifts of God, without any vice of nature, therefore it shall be good to set forth a more full definition of original sin.
Original sin therefore is the corruption of the whole nature of man, traduced by generation from the fall of our first parent into his posterity, which corruption, were it not for the benefit of Christ, adjudges all men born therein in a maner to infinite evils, and to eternal damnation.
In this definition are contained all kinds of causes. We have for the matter or subject, all the parts and strengths of man: The form is the depravation of them all: The efficient cause is the will of Adam which sinned: The instrument is the propagation of traduction, which is done through the flesh. The end and effect is eternal damnation, together with all the discomodities of this life. And hereof sprang sundry names of this sin: so that sometimes it is called a defect or want, sometimes perversenes, sometimes vice, sometimes a disease, sometimes contagiousness, sometimes malice, and Augustine calls it an affected quality, and [Greek], that is, a disorder. And that the whole man is corrupt, hereby appears, because he was to this end created, to cleave unto God, as to the chief good. But now he understands not things pertaining unto God, nor with patience waits for the promises which are set forth in the sciptures: but with grief he harkens unto the precepts of God: and the pains and rewards he utterly contemns. The affections rebelling against sound reason do wantonly deride the word of God. The body neglects to obey the soul.
…
With this our definition of original sin well agrees the want of original justice. Also with it agrees the description of Augustine, wherein he says that it is the concupiscence of the flesh: so that either of them be rightly understood. The chief of the schoolmen acknowledged this doctrine, as Thomas, Scotus and in especial Bonaventura. These appoint for the material part in this sin, the corruption of nature, or concupiscence: and for the formal part, the want of original righteousness: and so of these two opinions, which we have now rehearsed, they make but one.
But yet some of our men will have guiltiness or imputation of God to be the formal part. But forasmuch as that thing is utterly separated from sin, I rather lean to that sentence which puts for the form the battle and rebellion against the Law of God. For, that is the principal cause why the vices of nature are to be called sins.”
.
1600’s
Theodore Tronchin
Theological Theses on Original Sin trans. AI (Geneva: de la Planche, 1625), p. 5 Latin Tronchin (1582-1657) was a professor of Hebrew and theology at Geneva.
“11. There are two parts of this [original] sin: the former is the defection from God in the loins of Adam; the latter is the pravitas (depravity) that followed that defection. Hence it happens that original sin is said to be both inherent and imputed.
12. Imputed sin is that disobedience or defection of Adam, which was imputed to all his posterity who were in his loins, because they were in Adam as in their stock and root. For it is most just before God, and indeed it is received among all nations, that what the head does is deservedly imputed to the whole body, and that children are despoiled of all paternal goods on account of the father’s rebellion. But the case is not the same for other sins of parents, which, because they are truly personal, are therefore not transfused into their children.
13. The sin of Adam in the very act of his sinning is indeed alien from us, because we were not yet in act, but only in potentiality (δυνάμει) and originally in his loins; but with respect to the nature common to us and to him, it is proper to each. Therefore, we are punished not on account of the sin of Adam, but on account of our own which is in reality inherent in us. Just as someone infected in a time of contagion infects others, and the infected die; he who dies, dies not on account of the plague of another, but on account of his own.
…
23. As to the mode by which this sin is derived into posterity, we confess that this cannot be explained with sufficient precision. Augustine advises that nothing should be rashly asserted in such a question; and certainly, one should rather ask by what way we can escape from that evil, than how it has come down to us.
24. It must be known, however, that it is not transferred to us only by custom or by example and imitation of the sin of the first parents, as the Pelagians contended, for those who cannot imitate the sins of others also die and are judged (Rom. 5:14); but by propagation and natural traduction, we who are born such as Adam was after the sin.”
.
Latin
Articles
1600’s
Cameron, John –
Chamier, Daniel – Panstratia, tome 3, bk. 1
ch. 7, contra Pighius, sect. 20-21
ch. 8, contra Salmeronem
de la Place, Joshua – Disputation on the State of Fallen Man before Grace in Thesium Salmureins, bk. 1, pp. 206-7
Melchior, Johann –
Melchior was a professor of theology at Herborn.
.
1700’s
Wyttenbach
Roell
.
Books
1600’s
de la Place, Joshua – A Disputation on the Imputation of Adam’s First Sin… (Salmur, 1655) 480 pp. ToC
Gussetius, Jacob & his son – Theological Theses, ch. 11, sect. 31 ff. ed. Herman Venema
See Vitringa 2.351 for the references of these Latin mediate authors.
Schiere, Nicol. – Doctrine of All the Divine Testaments & Covenants, bk. 3, ch. 1, sect. 20 ff.
.
Dutch
1600’s
See Vitringa 2.351 for a handful of references
.
.
Moderates
Order of
Article 1
Quotes 3
Latin 2
.
Article
1800’s
Dabney, Robert L. – pp. 340-34 of Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1972) at Calvin & Calvinism
Dabney draws upon Stapfer and argues against Charles Hodge.
.
Quotes
Order of
Du Moulin
Ward
Vitringa
.
1600’s
Pierre Du Moulin
An Untying of Grave Questions (Leiden: Elzevirana, 1632), Treatise 5, on Original Sin, ch. 1, p. 13 trans. AI Latin
“Nor indeed would God impute the sin of Adam to his posterity, unless they had in themselves something that was truly sin, and unless they were by nature evil; for he who was entirely free from sin would be unjustly punished with death. Only then can the sin of another be justly imputed to an innocent person, when he stands as a surety for the sinner.”
.
Samuel Ward
‘God, in punishing a person connected to the one who sinned, exercises his own right’ in Theological Determinations in Works of Samuel Ward, ed. Seth Ward (d. 1643; Gallibrand, 1658), p. 61
“…it follows that we sinned by another’s will; that is, Adam’s, which will, however, unless it had been in some way the will of the whole nature, and therefore also ours, we would in no way be said to have truly sinned. “
.
1700’s
Campegius Vitringa
The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms ed. Martin Vitringa (d. 1722; Leiden: Mair, 1769), vol. 2, p. 347 Note that this passage does not appear in Vitringa, The Fundamentals of Sacred Theology (Reformation Heritage Books, 2024), as that version preceded The Doctrine of the Christian Religion.
“8. Whether this guilt depends mediately or immediately upon the first sin of Adam is debated in the schools more subtly than profitably, since in either case the same thing is maintained and asserted against the Pelagianizing party. What is certain is that the judgment of God has intervened here; and therefore this consequence of the sin of the first parents in their posterity can, in this sense, be called imputed original sin.”
.
Latin Articles
1700’s
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – pp. 347-54 in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms ed. Martin Vitringa (d. 1722; Leiden: Mair, 1769), vol. 2
Stapfer, Institutes of Polemical Theology, vol. 1, p. 236; vol. 4, pp. 513-14 & 561-66
.
.
Contra Mediate Imputation
Order of
Articles 4
Quote 1
Latin 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 9. ‘Whether the actual disobedience of Adam is imputed by an immediate and antecedent imputation to all his posterity springing from him by natural generation. We affirm.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R), vol. 1, 9th Topic, ‘Sin in General & in Particular’, pp. 613-29 See especially pp. 614-15, sections 5-6.
.
1800’s
Chalmers, Thomas
Lecture 25, p. 132 rt col to 133 top in Lectures on Romans (1863), on Rom. 5:12-21
Cunningham (Reformers, p. 384) says in this volume of Chalmers that he “gives some indications that he had adopted this doctrine” of mediate imputation. Yet it is not seen where, and in Chalmers’s linked section above, while at the beginning of the paragraph he seems that he may be calling an immediate imputation into question, yet by the end of the paragraph he is giving support to it.
Cunningham says (Ibid.) that in Chalmers’s Institutes, below, he “retracted his error;” yet, while Chalmers therein clearly teaches an immediate imputation, he never, that we have seen, said that he ever held otherwise.
pp. 454-59 & 465-69 in Institutes of Theology (Thomas Constable, 1849), vol. 1
Princeton – Theological Essays, vol. 1, pp. 146-
.
2000’s
Taylor, Matt – ‘Evaluation of Mediate Imputation’ (2016) 3 paragraphs
.
Quote
1600’s
Helvetic Consensus Formula 1675
“Canon 10: God entered into the Covenant of Works not only with Adam for himself, but also, in him as the head androot with the whole human race. Man would, by virtue of the blessing of the nature derived from Adam, inherit also the same perfection, provided he continued in it. So Adam by his sorrowful fall sinned and lost the benefits promised in the Covenant not only for himself, but also for the whole human race that would be born by the flesh. We hold, therefore, that the sin of Adam is imputed by the mysterious and just judgment of God to all his posterity. For the Apostle testifies that “in Adam all sinned, by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom 5:12,19) and “in Adam all die” (I Cor 15:21–22). But there appears no way in which hereditary corruption could fall, as a spiritual death, upon the whole human race by the just judgment of God, unless some sin of that race preceded, incurring the penalty of that death. For God, the most supreme Judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty.
Canon 11: For a double reason, therefore, man, because of sin, is by nature, and hence from his birth, before committing any actual sin, exposed to God’s wrath and curse; first, on account of the transgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam; and, secondly, on account of the consequent hereditary corruption implanted to his very conception, whereby his whole nature is depraved and spiritually dead; so that original sin may rightly be regarded as twofold, imputed sin and inherent hereditary sin.
Canon 12: Accordingly we can not, without harm to the Divine truth, agree with those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by God’s intention, and that his sin is imputed, therefore, immediately to his posterity; and under this mediate and consequent imputation not only destroy the imputation of the first sin, but also expose the doctrine of hereditary corruption to grave danger.”
.
Latin
1600’s
Rivet, Andrew – The Decree of the National Synod of the Reformed Churches in France held at Charenton… 1644-1645, on the Imputation of the First Sin to all Adam’s Posterity, to which is annexed the Consensus of the Confessions of the Protestant Churches & Doctores which have flourished in them from the first Reformation, also the Consensus of the Old Ecclesiasiastical Writers & of the Scholastics of the Roman Church… 2nd ed. (Geneva: Chovet, 1647) 213 pp. ToC Author Index
Maresius
Driessen
Leydecker
Marck
De Moore
.
.
.
Related Pages