“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Gen. 2:17
“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
.
.
Subsections
First Sin
Works Against Bellarmine on
Mediate Imputation
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Views
Articles 12+
Books 3
Quotes 6+
Confessions 10+
Views 1
Early Church 1
Lutheran 1
Historical 1
On Rom. 5:12
How Persons are Rightly Guilty of Original Sin 3
Real Union with Adam
Propagation of 3
In Infants
Objection: Inability to Not Sin
Contra Romanism 3
Latin 4
.
Views Respecting Original Sin
In All of Church History
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, though showing an unnecessary fastidiousness as to some portion of the general orthodox phraseology upon this point, and an unnecessary disposition to find fault with
some of the details of the doctrine, and with some of the particular aspects in which it has been represented and explained, and thereby lending their aid to injure the interests of sound doctrine, 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.”
.
In American Presbyterianism
Quote
B.B. Warfield
‘Imputation’, ‘6. La Place & Later Theologians & Schools’
“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.”
.
.
Articles
1500’s
Zwingli, Ulrich – Declaration of Huldreich Zwingli Regarding Original Sin, Addressed to Urbanus Rhegius in Zwingli on Providence & Other Essays ed. William J. Hinke (NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1983), pp. 1-32
Melanchthon, Philip
Article 2, Of Original Sin in The Apology of the Augsburg Confession tr: F. Bente & W. H. T. Dau (1531)
ch. 6. ‘Of Original Sin’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 70-83
Bullinger, Henry – 10th Sermon, ‘Of Sin & of the Kinds thereof, to wit, of Original and actual sin, and of sin against the Holy Ghost; and lastly of the most sure and just punishment of sins’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 2, 3rd Decade, pp. 358-432
Calvin, John – Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 1, bk. 2
2. ‘Man now deprived of Freedom of Will, & miserably enslaved’ 297
3. ‘Every thing proceeding from the corrupt Nature of Man damnable’ 334
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2
1. ‘Of Sin, especially Original, and of the Depraving of the Whole Nature of Man’ 213
‘By what means the corruption thereof is derived into the posterity’ 231, 239
‘That Sin is the Cause of Death’ 243
‘That by Sin All Things are Subject to Vanity’ 247
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Fall of Man’ 12.b
‘What the Fall of the First Man was’ 13.a
‘The manner of the Transgression’ 13.b
2. ‘What is the strength, working and pain of the sin of our first parents’ 13.b
3. ‘Of the pain of sin that was laid upon Adam for his transgression’ 14.b
‘To whom the Fall of Mankind is imputed’ 16.a
4. ‘To what purpose of God mankind fell in Adam’ 17.a
Beza, Theodore
A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1562), Ch. 3
13. The way which leads to the second death
14. What freewill remains in man after sin
15. A brief sum of Original Sin
pp. 25, 32 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)
Of Sin, 3. How many kinds of sin there are
Of the First Sin
1. What that first sin of Adam and Eve was
2. What were the causes of the first sin
3. What are the effects of the first sin
4. Why God permitted the first sin
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 31-37 & 278-79
Ch. 7, ’Of Man’s Fall, and of Original Sin and the Fruits Thereof’
. On Aphorism 11
Rollock, Robert – 25. ‘Original Sin’ in A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) in Select Works of Robert Rollock… (d. 1599; Edinburgh, 1849), vol. 1, pp. 166-78
.
1600’s
Perkins, William
A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
12. Of Original Sin
…
50. Errors of the Papists in their distributing of the Causes of Salvation
5. By Baptism rightly administered, not only the guiltiness, but also the corruption of original sin, is so washed away that it is not afterward properly accounted sin
…
8. The Holy Ghost does not give grace to will, but only does unloose the will which before was chained, and also does excite the same: so that the will by its own power, does dispose itself to justification
2. Of Original Sin in A Reformed Catholic… ([Cambridge] 1598)
Bucanus, William – pp. 157-70 of 15. ‘Of Sin in General, especially of Original Sin’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606)
What a fall was Adam’s Fall which kindled the horrible vengeance of God against all mankind?
Whence came it to pass that man wittingly and willingly suffered himself to be driven to such a horrible fall?
What is that corruption or depraving of man’s nature (which before was good and to which Adam was created) ensuing that transgression?
How many sorts are there of this corruption?
What understand you by the name of ‘Original Sin’?
But what is derived from Adam to his posterity?
Seeing Levi is said to pay tithes in Abraham, because he was in the loins of Abraham, Heb. 7:9, why also is not Christ said to have sinned in Adam?
What is the cause that sin is derived and propagated from the father to the children?
But is it righteous that the whole offspring should be partakers of the punishment deserved by one?
But by what means is this guilt and this blemish and corruption conveyed to his posterity?
But why are children born of Godly parents not sanctified by their purity as well as they draw corruption from them?
To whom is Original Sin derived?
Is none amongst all mankind excepted?
‘Yet the children of the faithful are holy, 1 Cor. 7:14, ‘if the root be holy, the branches also are holy,’ Rom. 11:16
Is Original Sin the sin of another, or is it every man’s proper sin?
May the sins of other parents be said to be conveyed into their children as the sin of Adam is said to be?
Is Original Sin a substance or an accident?
Is it an accident which may be separated from man?
What is the subject of Original Sin?
How many parts are there of this corruption?
Because Paul says, Rom. 7:18, ‘I know that in me, that is in my flesh there dwelleth no good,’ and v. 23, ‘I see another law in my members resisting the law of my mind,’ does it therefore follow hence that the higher part of the soul is not the subject of concupiscence, but only the sensitive part?
But are privation of original righteousness and concupiscence sins?
What is Original Sin therefore?
By what names is this sin called in the Scriptures?
How does Original Sin differ from actual sin?
What is the end or wage of Original Sin?
What is the effect thereof?
What use is there of this doctrine concerning Original Sin?
How is this doctrine opposed?
Du Moulin, Peter – The Anatomy of Arminianism… (1619; London, 1620), pp. 57-73
9. ‘How the sin of Adam may belong to his posterity, and how many ways it may pass to his offspring. First of the imputation, and whether the sins of the grandfather, and great-grandfathers are imputed to their posterity’
“The sin of Adam does pass to his posterity by two means, by imputation and propagation.” – p. 57
“Adam while he lived committed many sins, yet I think that only that first sin of Adam was imputed to his posterity, because only by this sin he violated that covenant which was made with him, as with the author of mankind.” – p. 61
Moulin (1568-1658) was a reformed Huguenot minister in France who also resided in England for some years. For background on Moulin and this work, see Donald Sinnema, ch. 4, ‘The French Reformed Churches, Arminianism and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619)’ in ed. Klauber, The Theology of the French Reformed Churches… (RHB, 2014).
10. ‘Of the propagation of the sin of Adam to his posterity, where also of the traduction of the soul and of sin itself’
“II. And if anyone would exactly view the manner and circumstances of Adam’s sin, he shall find that in every man, the character, and no obscure image, of that first sin, is deeply impressed: for there is engrafted in every man curiosity and desire of knowing those things which pertain nothing to him: and also a distrustful hesitation, and doubting of the Word of God: And as Adam laid the fault upon his wife, and his wife upon the Serpent, so is it natural to every man to cover his fault with another’s fault: Also flight and trembling at the meeting of God, lying, dissembling, and a sense of indecent nakedness are in all men by nature, and are derived into posterity from that fountain; and to these things we are not taught, but made, not instructed, but infected: to these things we do not only not need a master, but contrary to the teaching of masters, and to discipline, all stayes and bars being broken, we return to them, nature being conqueror.” – pp. 64-65
Baron, Robert – Philosophy, the Handmaiden of Theology: a Pious & Sober Explanation of Philosophical Questions that Frequently occur in Theological Disputations 2nd ed. trans. AI (1621; Robinson & Davis, 1658), 2nd Exercise, Soul’s Origin & Propagation of Sin Latin Baron was a creationist as regards the soul.
6. Whether the preceding doctrine removes the propagation of original sin [No] 56
7. Arguments which are usually brought against the preceding doctrine on native corruption’s propagation through the parents’ seed are solved 58
8. Some questions on the propagation of original sin are
proposed and solved 61-62
9. The final arguments which are usually brought against the creation and infusion of the soul are dissolved 62
10. Whether a more convenient or more expeditious reason could be given for the transmission of concupiscence, or the propensity to evil, than the one we have said is the third part of original sin [No] 64
11. Two other opinions on the transmission of sin are considered 66
12. It is shown that those who attack the creation of souls disagree much among themselves; and the first three of their opinions on the soul’s origin are confuted 70
13. Fourth opinion, of [the Lutheran] Balthasar Meisner, is refuted 70
14. Fifth opinion, of Timothy Bright, is confuted 74
15. All opinions on traducianism have been confuted; They cannot explain sin’s propagation more safely or easily than we 77
Baron (c.1596-1639) was a Scottish minister, theologian and one of the Aberdeen doctors.
Ames, William – The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1
ch. 13, ‘Original Sin’ pp. 120-21
ch. 17, ‘The Propagation of Sin’, pp. 127-28
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Tronchin, Theodore – Theological Theses on Original Sin trans. AI (Geneva: de la Planche, 1625) 7 pp.
Tronchin (1582-1657) was a professor of Hebrew and theology at Geneva.
Rivet, Andrew – 15. ‘On Original Sin’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 1, pp. 350-84
Wolleb, Johannes – 10. ‘Original Sin & Free Will’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 69-71
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Du Moulin, Pierre – ch. 1, ‘In which the question is examined, whether there is original sin, in whom it exists, and whether it is removed by Baptism. Only Christ is excepted from this stain. Not even the Virgin Mary was immune from it’ in An Untying of Grave Questions (Leiden: Elzevirana, 1632), Treatise 5, on Original Sin, trans. AI Latin
“Wherefore, just as the eggs of an asp, which have harmed no one, are rightly crushed, so infants are rightly subject to punishment on account of that inherent and death-bringing pestilence, by which they are prone to evil.” – p. 24
Luthard, Christoph – Theological Disputation on Original Sin (Bern: Fabricius, 1637) 10 pp.
Lüthardt (1590-1663) was a Swiss reformed professor of philosophy and theology at Bern.
Rutherford, Samuel
Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter trans. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019)
ch. 6, section 2, ‘Whether Original Sin is not Sin because it was not done Personally?’, pp. 83-84
ch. 10, section 8, ‘Whether the Covenant of Works entered into with Adam was rigid and of such a sort that God, according to its rigor, could not carry it out on his posterity? We deny against the Remonstrants.’, pp. 97-99
Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI by Monergism (1639-1642; Utrecht, 1668; 2024), pp. 299-339
ch. 6, ‘On Original Sin’
1. Whether there is original sin in every man? We affirm against the Arminians and Socinians.
2. Whether, because original sin is not committed by personal volition, it is therefore not sin, properly so-called? We deny against the Arminians.
3. Whether such a covenant can be proven, by which Adam’s sin is imputed to all his posterity? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
4. Whether concupiscence is sin, particularly after baptism and regeneration? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Papists.
5. Whether concupiscence is formally prohibited by the law of God? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Papists.
6. Whether concupiscence is sin when one does not give consent of the will? We affirm against the Pelagians.
7. Whether the wrestling between the flesh and the Spirit in the reborn is simply natural, and on the part of the resisting flesh, so minimally culpable? We deny against the Remonstrants.
8. Whether this wrestling is always in the reborn? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
9. Whether actual sins have arisen, not from original sin, but from an acquired habit of evil acting, and from pure free will? We deny against the Remonstrants and Socinians.
ch. 7, ‘On the State of Fallen Man’
1. Whether the knowledge of God is natural to man after the fall? We deny against the Arminians and Socinians.
2. Whether the mind is already blind in supernatural matters, so that illumination is needed? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Socinians.
3. Whether the will is powerless in supernatural acts? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
4. Whether there is a freedom of the will to nil and will good, being indicated from the intellect? We deny against the Remonstrants.
5. Whether the Arminians say sincerely that the will is corrupt? We deny against them.
6. Whether God, by any law founded in the merits of Christ, confers a prevenient [antecedent] grace for doing what is in it? We deny against the Papists.
7. Whether God gives grace of conversion to man because he is better disposed, or from any mode of equity and congruency? We deny with a distinction against the Papists and Remonstrants.
8. Whether the Adversaries rightly infer this, that according to us, it is noxious for the unconverted to hear the Word and to use external means? We deny.
9. Whether legal contrition can be called preparation for conversion? We distinguish.
10. Whether the unregenerate can furnish truly good works? We deny against the Remonstrants.
11. Whether the virtues of the gentiles are true virtues? We deny against the Remonstrants.
12. Whether the unregenerate person is constrained by a need to sin? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
13. Whether there is sin which cannot be avoided by the one sinning? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
14. Where the afflictions of the faithful are truly punishments? We deny against the Remonstrants.
‘How Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness are ours’ being pp. 234-35 of The Covenant of Life Opened… (1655)
Ward, Samuel – ‘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), pp. 59-65
“Here it must be premised that God, thus punishing, must be regarded as acting the part of a supreme Rector and Governor, not as a subordinate Judge constituted under law…
God could rightfully covenant with the whole human race in the person of the first-formed man (the protaplast), so that by reason and virtue of that natural conjunction which existed between Adam and his posterity, God could give a precept to Adam, obliging him, not as an individual of human nature, but as the stock and origin of the whole nature; and therefore all posterity in his person; on this condition, that if he kept the precept, his posterity would be born in that original justice in which he himself was first created. But if he transgressed, all who would thereafter be born from him would be contaminated by sin, and indeed, by his sinning, the whole human race would be considered to sin. Now this divine ordinance concerning:
1. The obligation of the human race in the person of Adam;
2. The imputation of his transgression to his posterity;
3. The propagation of his corruption to the same posterity;
4. The punishment of posterity for Adam’s sin,
has its principal foundation in the Dominion of God, but it has a congruence of equity in that natural conjunction which exists between Adam and his posterity. Whence God, punishing the connected person, that is, the posterity of Adam sinning in the person of Adam, could most excellently do this by his own right.
Hence it is that the apostle, speaking of the first man, Rom. 5:12, says, “in whom all have sinned,” from which place it is rightly inferred that we are all not only born sinners, but have at some time sinned. And the same apostle teaches this in Rom. 3, when he says, “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” But since it is certain that none of us sinned by our own will before we were born, as the apostle himself says in Rom. 9, where it is said of Jacob and Esau that they had not yet done anything good or evil when it was said to their mother, “the elder shall serve the younger,” 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.
We sinned, therefore, in the first man, when he sinned; and that transgression of his was also our transgression. Adam alone committed that sin with an actual will; but to us it is communicated through generation in the way that what is past can be communicated, namely by imputation; for it is imputed to all who are born of Adam, because we all, existing in the loins of Adam, in him and through him sinned, when he himself sinned.” – pp. 59-61
Spanheim, Friedrich – ‘Summary Statements on Original Sin & on Rom. 5:12’ (d. 1649)
Leigh, Edward – ch. 2. ‘What Original Corruption Is’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 4, pp. 308-13
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 9th Topic
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.’ 613
10. ‘Whether any original sin or inherent stain and depravity may be granted, propagated to us by generation. We affirm against the Pelagians and Socinians.’ 629
11. ‘Whether original sin has corrupted the very essence of the soul. Also whether it is a mere privation or a certain positive quality too.’ 636
12. ‘How is original sin propagated from parents to their children?’ 640
van Mastricht, Peter – ch. 2, ‘Original Sin’ in Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 3, pt. 1, bk. 4, pp. 443-84
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 14, ‘Original & Actual Sin’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 381-407
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
Holtzfus, Barthold – ch. 2, ‘On Original Sin’ in ‘Theological Dissertation on Sin & its Distinctions’ (Frankfurt: Schwartz, 1712), pp. 8-18
Holtzfus (1659-1717) was a German, reformed professor of philosophy and theology at Frankfurt.
Schubert, Johann Ernst – Theological Disputation presenting the Doctrine of Original Sin, Asserted Against Pelagian Errors (1751) 24 pp.
Schubert (1717-1774) was a Lutheran professor of theology in Germany.
Venema, Herman – ch. 30, Effects of the Fall in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), pp. 490-514
ToC: First Parents’ Condition After Fall, Sentence Pronouned upon by God, Posterity’s Condition, Original Sin, Proofs, Origin, Extent & External Effects of Moral Depravity, Different Kinds of Sin, Sin Against Holy Ghost, Universality of Moral Depravity Explained & Proved, Not Inconsistent with Liberty
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald
Princeton Theological Essays (1830)
‘The Early History of Pelagianism’, pp. 80-108
‘Original Sin’, pp. 109-27
‘The Doctrine of Original Sin as Held by the Church, Both Before & After the Reformation’ in The Biblical Repertory & Theological Review (Oct. 1830)
Hodge, Charles
‘The Imputation of Sin’ 3 parts in Princeton Theological Essays (1830), pp. 128-217
‘Commentary on Rom. 5:12-21’ in Commentary on Romans (1837)
Systematic Theology, vol. 2, Part II, ‘Anthropology’, ch. 8, ‘Sin’
8. ‘The Effects of Adam’s Sin upon his Posterity’ p. 192
9. ‘Immediate Imputation’ pp. 192-213
10. ‘Mediate Imputation’ pp. 205-14
12. ‘Realistic Theory’ pp. 216-26
13. ‘Original Sin’ pp. 227-54
14. ‘The Seat of Original Sin’ pp. 254-57
15. ‘Inability’ pp. 257-79
Shedd, W.G.T.
‘The Doctrine of Original Sin’ in Theological Essays (1852), pp. 211-64
ch. 5, ‘Original Sin’ in Dogmatic Theology (1888), pp. 168-260
‘Commentary on Rom. 5:12-21’ in Commentary on Romans
Baird, Samuel J.
The First Adam & the Second: the Elohim Revealed in the Creation & Redemption of Man (1860) 700 pp.
A Rejoinder to the Princeton Review upon The Elohim Revealed, touching the Doctrine of Imputation & Kindred Topics (1860) 40 pp.
The anecdote in the first two pages gives a summary of the whole, shows in part the problems that Charles Hodge’s view is liable to, and gives the occasion and reason for the publication of his book on the topic above.
Thornwell, James H. – Collected Writings, vol. 1
Lecture 13, ‘Original Sin’, pp. 301-51
‘Nature of our Interest in the Sin of Adam: being a Review of Baird’s Elohim Revealed’ (1860), pp. 515-72
Breckinridge, R.J. – pp. 498-502 of ch. 32, ‘Origin of Evil… Fall of Man…’ in The Knowledge of God Objectively Considered
Landis, Robert
”Unthinkable Propositions’ & Original Sin’ in The Southern Presbyterian Review (April, 1875), pp. 298-315
‘The Gratuitous Imputation of Sin’ in The Southern Presbyterian Review, vol. 27 (1876), pp. 318-52
Dabney, Robert
Discussions, vol. 1
‘The Doctrine of Original Sin’ (1884), pp. 143-68 A review of Landis’ book above.
pp. 253-81 of ‘Hodge’s Systematic Theology’
Lectures 27-29, ‘The Fall & Original Sin’ in Systematic Theology (1878), pp. 306-51
Cunningham, William – Historical Theology (1863)
‘The Doctrines of the Fall’ & ‘of the Will’ in vol. 1, p. 496 ff. & p. 568 ff. 70 pp. & 41 pp.
‘Original Sin’ in vol. 2, p. 386 ff. 8 pp.
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘Original Sin & Actual Sin’ in Systematic Theology (1950) 18 paragraphs
.
.
Books
400’s
Augustine – On Original Sin
.
1500’s
Junius, Francis – On the First Sin of Adam $5 Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Leiden, 1595) Latin
This was written on the occasion of great flooding in neighboring regions.
.
1600’s
Whitaker, William – A Treatise on Original Sin… against the first three books of Thomas Stapleton… (Cambridge: Legat, 1600) 175 pp.
“That will [of Adam], therefore, in the first place, and that act of Adam is imputed to us; then from that imputation, the habitual will and the stain of original guilt has adhered to us. You [a Romanist] (I believe) fear the imputation of sin, lest you be forced to concede the imputation of justice. But without it, you will never explain clearly or understand soundly what original guilt is, and how the will of Adam was ours, and how we sinned voluntarily in Adam.” – p. 35
Ward, Samuel – Lectures on Original Sin in Works of Samuel Ward: Theological Determinations, a Treatise on Justification, Lectures on Original Sin, ed. Seth Ward (d. 1643; London: Gallibrand, 1658), pp. 392-656 trans. AI Latin
Ward (1572–1643) was an English academic and a master at the University of Cambridge. He served as one of the delegates from the Church of England to the Synod of Dort.
“From what has been said, according to the proper sense of our Church, it is rightly gathered that the sin of Adam passed to his posterity, both by imputation and by propagation. And therefore that to complete what they call original sin, both are required: both the imputation of the actual sin of Adam, and the propagation of the viciousness remaining and inhering in the same after the act of sin. But so that this may shine forth more clearly, it must be premised that the name of sin can be taken in two ways: either as it denotes:
1. The free transgression of a precept.
2. That which remains in the soul of the sinner after that action of the transgression of the precept, whence he is truly called and was a sinner.
But all acknowledge that these acceptations of the word sin have a place in actual and personal sin. But since original sin is no less properly and truly a sin than personal and actual sin, as we will demonstrate later, we should not fear to extend them to original sin also, as Bellarmine truly infers…
sin in the prior signification is said to be one only of all men, but in
Adam it is called actual, in us original. For Adam alone committed it with an actual will; but to us it is communicated by generation, in the way that that which has passed can be communicated, namely by imputation. For it is imputed to all who are born of Adam, since all, existing in the loins of Adam, in him and through him have sinned when he himself sinned. But here, for a clearer elucidation of this matter, it should be added that Adam in Paradise bore a twofold person:
1. Both of himself.
2. And of his whole posterity, whose mass he sustained.
…just as in Adam besides the act of disobedience there was also a perversion of the will, and an obliquity and deordination by which he was properly and formally called and was a sinner until it was remitted to him by penitence; so also in all the posterity of Adam, as soon as we begin to be sons of Adam, besides the imputation of the disobedience of Adam, there is also a similar perversion, obliquity, and deordination inherent in each one, by which we are properly and formally called sinners, until such iniquity is remitted by a new birth…
Thus, therefore, if it is asked of us what original sin properly is, we respond with Bellarmine:
“If sin is taken for an action conflicting with the law, original sin is the first disobedience of Adam, committed by Adam himself, not as he was a singular person, but as he bore the person of the whole human race. But if sin is taken for that which remains in a man after the action, and whence the same man is named not sinning but a sinner, original sin is the lack of original justice, together with a habitual aversion and deordination of the will, which can also be called a stain rendering the will hateful to God.” – ch. 13, pp. 537-39
.
Quotes
Order of
Twisse
Luthard
French Reformed
Genevan Theses
Baxter & Twisse
Holtzfus
.
1600’s
William Twisse
A Treatise of Mr. Cotton’s clearing certain doubts concerning Predestination together with an Examination thereof (London: J.D., 1646), 3rd Doubt, p. 148
“…by reason of original sin it is, that a natural man cannot perform anything in a gracious manner, to wit, for want [lack] of the love of God:
Original sin being an habitual aversion from God and conversion unto the creature, or more briefly an inordinate conversing with the creature, either in enjoying it, whereas he should only use it, God alone being to be enjoyed; or in using it, but not in a gracious manner, that is, not for God;s sake; to wit, through want of the love of God, which is brought upon us by the sin of Adam, as whereby our natures were bereaved of the Spirit of God.
Thus in prosecuting mine answer unto a devised argument, I have made bold to open my mind concerning original sin: A point that has seemed unto me of such difficulty that I have been wont to range it amongst those three [things] whereabouts I could not expect to be satisfied whilst I lived.”
.
The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy… (d. 1646; Oxford, 1653), bk. 2, An Examination of Certain Passages inserted into Mr. Hord’s Discourse, Answer to the Additions
p. 61
“Now Prosper shows how original sin passes over all, not by the will of God; and secondly, how it passes over all by the will of God: Not by the will of God instituente; but by the will of God judicante: His words are these: Haec servitus non est institutio Dei, sed judicium.
This slavery of sin which came upon all by Adam’s sin is not God’s institution but his judgment. As much as to say it came not upon a man by God’s first creation, but by his judgment upon him, because of his first trangression; so that if divine judgment be the will of God; it is apparent Prosper is so far from denying that slavery to have come upon all men by the just will of God, as that he expressly acknowledges it.”
.
p. 140
“I say indeed the guilt of Adam’s transgression is derived unto us, that is to our persons by imputation; but that very sin of Adam was the sin of our natures, as Augustine speaks: Non modo natura facta est peccatrix, sed et genuit peccatores. ‘Not only our human nature became a sinner, but also begat sinners.’ (De Nuptitis, ch. 34) And accordingly it is justly imputed unto our persons, otherwise how could it be just with God to condemn any man for original sin; which yet is expressly acknowledged by Mr. Hoord.
And the apostle says expressly that ‘in Adam all have sinned.’ And Augustine gives the reason of it: De Adamo omnes peccatum originale trahunt, quia omnes unus fuerunt. ‘All draw original sin from Adam, because all were that one.’…
And that the corruption consequent is derived to us only by propagation, I think it is without doubt amongst all who concur not with Pelagius in maintaining that it is derived unto us by imitation, and so [by this] only…
they proceed from a false ground, supposing that the reason of this imputation of Adam’s sin, and propagation of his corruption unto all his posterity, is merely built upon this foundation, that we were in Adam’s loins when he sinned, which is untrue:
1. In his first reason he does miserably overlash; for we could not be guilty of all the sins which were committed by Adam from his fall to his life’s end, no not upon the ground whereon this authour builds; so long we were not in his Ioines, nor any longer than till he begat Seth; for from Seth sprang Noah, and we all from him. Neither is it credible that Adam continued to beget children till the last yeare, and month, and day of his life. Indeed we no where read that we are guilty of any other of his sins besides the first, the reason whereof shall be given in the next place.
2. Therefore I say, in answer unto them both that the ground of imputing Adam’s sin unto his posterity is not only because we were in Adam’s Ioins, but because the first sin of Adam was it that bereaved his nature of God’s image; and so brought corruption upon himself by an aversion from the Creator and unchangeable good, and conversion unto the creature, wherein the Lord left him, bereaving him of his Spirit; and this nature, by this sin alone so corrupt, is the fountain of all our natures: Like as if Adam had stood, of the same fountain of integrity we had all received incorrupt natures, so that the like cannot be said of any other sin of Adam afterwards committed by him, nor of the sin of any other our progenitors succeeding him.
For as for the wicked, they have no such spirit of God to loose; and as for the godly, they have indeed the Spirit of God, but so as not to be taken from them by the sins committed by them, any more than it was from David upon the committing of so foul sins in the matter of Uriah; neither do any godly parents propagate their state of grace to their posterity. And Aquinas is so bold hereupon as to profess that (Summa, pt. 1 of 2, q. 81, art. 2, in the body):
Impossibile est, quod aliqua peccata parentum proximorum, vel etiam primi parentis praeter primum, per originem traducantur.
‘It is impossible that the sins of our immediate parents, or of our first parents, besides the first, should be derived unto posterity by propagation.’
For, says he, a man generates the same with himself in kind [or nature] only, not in individual. And therefore those things, which pertain to him as a particular person, as acts personal, he does not propagate unto his children.
Now to the nature of man, something may pertain naturally, something by the gift of grace. And this original righteousness as a gift of grace was bestowed on the whole nature of mankind in our first parents, which Adam lost by his first sin; so that like as original righteousness had been propagated to posterity together with the human nature, so also the opposite inordination.
But as for other actual sins, either of our first parents, or of others, they do not corrupt the nature of man, as touching that which pertains to nature, but as touching that which pertains to his person; therefore other sins are not propagated unto posterity. And this reason which Aquinas gives, was long before given by Anselm, De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato, ch. 23.”
.
Christoph Luthard
Theological Disputation on Original Sin (Bern: Fabricius, 1637), p. 2 Lüthardt (1590-1663) was a Swiss reformed professor of philosophy and theology at Bern.
“Thesis 1… For, as Augustine himself testifies [about original sin] in On the Morals of the Church, “nothing is more known for preaching, nothing more secret for understanding, than original sin.” And how difficult this doctrine of original sin is, the most learned of English theologians warns in bk. 1, On Original Sin, when he says:
‘how it was propagated from Adam to posterity should be believed rather than inquired into; and it can be inquired into more easily than it can be understood; and it is better understood than it is explained.'”
.
French Reformed
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.]
.
The Genevan Theses 1649
ed. James T. Dennison Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries (RHB), vol. 4, pp. 413-22
“I. Concerning Original Sin
1. The first sin (παράπτωμα) of Adam is imputed to his descendants by the ordination and judgment of the justice of God, and the evil of corruption spreads in each and every one coming into the world naturally descended from that one. For that reason, there are three things which constitute men guilty before God:
(1) the guilt flowing from the fact that we have all sinned in Adam;
(2) the corruption which is the penalty of this guilt imposed upon both Adam and his descendants;
(3) the sins which men commit as adults.
2. The imputation of the sin of Adam and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ correspond to their opposite in this way: as truly as the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants so truly is the righteousness of Christ imputed to his elect. The imputation of the sin of Adam precedes corruption; the imputation of the righteousness of Christ precedes sanctification.
3. The imputation of the sin of Adam and impure generation, are indeed two ways of deriving original sin, themselves mutually connected and plainly inseparable, nevertheless distinct as antecedent and consequent, as cause and effect; for this reason, the corruption of nature in us is derived from Adam because in him we have sinned and have been made guilty.
Rejection of the error of those:
Who deny that the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants; who, appearing to establish imputation, in truth destroy or overthrow it, not acknowledging that it has first been diffused into each one by natural corruption.”
.
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.
“I had never read one Socinian, nor much of any Arminians… and I remembered two or three things in Dr. [William] Twisse (whom I most esteemed) which inclined me to moderation in the five Articles [disputed between Arminians and the Reformed]:
…
4. That the ratio reatus [defining rule of guilt] in our Original Sin, is first founded in our natural propagation from Adam, and but secondarily from the positive Covenant [of Works] of God.”
.
Barthold Holtzfus
‘Theological Dissertation on Sin & its Distinctions’ (Frankfurt: Schwartz, 1712), ch. 2, ‘On Original Sin’, p. 16
Ҥ44. Four things are commonly acknowledged in Original Sin:
1. The Fuel, which is the proclivity of nature to evils, specifically to sensible and sensual things. Whence Paul in Rom. 8:5, 7 calls τὸ Φρόνημα σαρκός, the “wisdom of the flesh,” that which savors the things of the flesh, and is therefore hostile to God, and not subject to the law of God. In ch. 7:17, 20, it is the “sin that dwelleth in us,” the “evil that is present with us.” Verse 23, “the law which is in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
2. The Sense of this Fuel.
3. The Guilt.
4. The Dominion.
This last is taken away in sanctification; the guilt in baptism and justification; the fuel and the sense, left for the struggle in this life, are taken away in death and the disjunction of the soul from the body.”
.
.
Confessions & Documents
Collection
ed. Jean-Francois Salvard, Theodore Beza, Lambert Daneau, Antoine de la Roche Chandieu & Simon Goulart – The 4th Section, ‘Of Man’s Fall, Sin & Free-Will’ (1581) in The Harmony of Protestant Confessions, pp. 57-80
In 1581, the first Harmony of Protestant Reformed Confessions of Faith was published in Geneva. It was the result of a collaboration between the Huguenot ministers listed above.
They published it in response to the publication of the Lutheran Book of Concord in 1580. It included a comparison of eleven Reformed confessions and the Lutheran Augsburg Confession. In 1842, it was translated into English, reorganized and enlarged by Peter Hall.
.
Genevan 1649 Articles
Donald D. Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685 Th.D. diss (Knox College in cooperation with Toronto School of Theology. 1971), pp. 231-35 For context see ‘Donald Grohman on Dort and the 1649 Genevan Articles’ at Calvin & Calvinism and Grohman.
.
“Original Sin
I. The first sin of Adam (maraptoma) is imputed to his posterity by a just disposition and judgment of God, and corruption is poured-out on each and everyone who proceeds naturally from that source. Thus, there are three things which render man accused before God: (1) The guilt flowing from the fact that we have all sinned in Adam; (2) the corruption which is the punishment of this guilt, imposed both on Adam and on his posterity; (3) the sins which men commit as adults.
2. The imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of the justice of Jesus Christ answer each other mutually. Just as Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, so the justice of Christ is imputed to the elect. The imputation of Adam’s precedes corruption; the imputation of Christ‘s justice precedes sanctification.
3. The imputation of Adam’s sin and impure generation, which are certainly two ways of transmitting original sin, are interrelated and completely inseparable. Nevertheless, when they are considered as antecedent and consequent or cause and effect, to be sure, the corruption of nature in us is derived from Adam, because in him we have sinned and we have been made guilty.
Rejection of error of those:
Who deny that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity; and who pretending to establish imputation, really destroy it or overthrow it, not recognizing that, first, it is diffused naturally to each one.”
.
.
The Early Church on Original Sin
‘Original Sin’ in ‘Patristic Passages of Interest for Lutherans’ (2014) 13 pp.
The article gives excerpts from Augustine, Hilary, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria & Origen.
.
In Lutheranism
Article
1600’s
Calov, Abraham – Disputation on Original Sin tr. by AI by Unextended Quantity (Wendt, 1655) 38 pp. Latin
Calov (1612–1686) was a professor of theology at Konigsberg and Wittenberg and one of the champions of Lutheran orthodoxy in the 17th century.
.
Historical
In American Presbyterianism
Hutchinson, George P. – The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology (Sola Fide Publishers, 2014) 142 pp. Foreword by John Murray
.
.
On our Real Union with Adam by our Common Human Nature
Quote
1500’s
William Whitaker
A Treatise on Original Sin… (d. 1595; Legat, 1600), bk. 1, ch. 7, pp. 25-26 trans. AI Latin
“For you [a Romanist] say that that privation which Adam contracted by sinning, we, by being born, although it is a sin, is yet not our sin nor proper to us, unless because what Adam did when he sinned, we also did, the apostle saying, “In him all have sinned.” [Rom. 5:12]
And this also I acknowledge. For his will was ours; and therefore his transgression is ours, because he is not considered as one man, but as the root of the human race, in whom we were all included by virtue [in potency or in power], as Augustine says, “we were all that one man” (De pecc. merit. & remiss., bk. 1, ch. 10). But now original sin does not consist only in the deformity which the fault of Adam brought forth, but it also comprehends the act of that sin itself, if we did the same as Adam did, if we truly sinned with Adam, and what he willed, we willed. Original sin will therefore not be so involuntary as you think, so that it is therefore the least of all sins because it has the least of that which is voluntary.
For if Adam’s will was ours, as much as Adam willed, so much are we also to be thought to have willed. But Adam sinned knowingly and willingly; we therefore in him, and by that his will, both have sinned and willed to sin. But unless you admit imputation here (a word from which you abhor and carefully guard yourself), you will fall into the greatest absurdity, and you will fight with yourself, you who a little before said that the sin which entered into the world, and by which we are all made sinners, is not the actual sin of Adam, but a certain iniquity contracted from it and transmitted into us. Now you attribute to us the same will of sinning which was in Adam; otherwise, you affirm, this privation left in nature by sin could not make us sinners. Therefore, we are not only bound by a habitual iniquity, but we have sinned with an actual will in Adam; and this will is primarily to be considered in original sin, without which we could neither be nor be held as sinners.
What you interpose concerning a pact or precept pertains nothing to the matter; for whether Adam received this justice on this law and condition, that he should either preserve or lose it for himself and his own, or whether no such convention intervened between God and Adam, since he was the parent and origin of the nature and of the human race, it was necessary that in him we either stand or fall.
Although, that God threatened him with death if he should move his hand to the forbidden tree, from this it sufficiently appears that he had been forewarned of the danger into which he would cast himself headlong if he should sin, of which nothing was to be feared if he should remain in his duty. And hither is wont to be brought what we read in the prophet: “But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant” (Hos. 6:7).
Nor is it to be thought that Adam was ignorant either of the reward, if he should not sin, or of the punishment, if he should dare to sin. Unless this had been foretold to him, he would have had some excuse, although not a sufficient one; now, having been taught before of the event, since he did not have faith nor take care for himself, he is to be thought to have deservedly fallen into this calamity.
Although, however, there had been no word on this matter, yet what unhappiness he willingly brings upon himself, God has justly inflicted upon all his posterity. But in what way? Because His will is the norm of right and of justice. You will never otherwise understand it to have been just that we are all born miserable on account of the temerity, or infidelity, or ambition, or whatever fault of the first man.
For that you say his will was ours, and we willed in him, I confess to be true, but the reason for this truth is none other than the will of the creator. For what cause will you bring [on your view] why all children do not in the same way atone for the faults of their parents? You will say that Adam is to be considered as the seed and principle of nature, and his sin was the sin of nature itself; the sins of others are personal; therefore his is transfused with nature, not those of others. I hear, and I do not object. But why Adam by sinning destroyed not only his person but nature, when other men harm their own persons but do not make nature worse, assign a cause, if you can, other than the most just will of God.”
.
.
On Rom. 5:12
Articles
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘On Rom. 5:12’ in Commentary on Romans
.
1600’s
‘Friedrich Spanheim Sr.: Summary Statements on Original Sin & on Rom. 5:12’ (RBO)
.
Quote
1700’s
Barthold Holtzfus
‘Theological Dissertation on Sin & its Distinctions’ (Frankfurt: Schwartz, 1712), ch. 2, ‘On Original Sin’, p. 10
“§29. Likewise, it is the same whether you translate the words ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον with the Vulgate, Beza, [Spanheim Sr.] and the Dutch [Annotations] as “in whom all have sinned,” or with [Chrysostom,] Erasmus, Luther, [Vermigli,] Piscator, the English of Geneva [Annotations], and Castellio you render it “for that” or “because all have sinned.”
For either Version can be conveniently reduced to this sense: By one man sinning, all have sinned. Parallel places also exist in which ἐφ’ ᾧ signifies the same, or at least can signify, what ἐν ᾧ does, as in Marc. 24; 2 Cor. 54; Heb. 910, 17; 1 Thess. 37. And the Apostle not only uses a similar phrase in v. 19 “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,” but in 1 Cor. 1522 he expressly says: ἐν τῷ Ἀδάμ, ‘In Adam all die.'”
.
How Persons are Rightly Guilty of Original Sin in Them
Quotes
Order of
Du Moulin
Mastricht
.
1600’s
Du Moulin, Peter – The Anatomy of Arminianism… (1619; London, 1620), ch. 9
pp. 59-61
“Why then do we die for another’s sin? Why is the sin of Adam imputed to us?… What? that the punishment is greater than the sin? For when we sinned in Adam only, in potentia, ‘in power’ and possibility, yet we are punished in actu, ‘in act’: And that seems most cruel, that Adam, which sinned in act is saved [by the promise of the Redeemer, it is held], and for the same sin many are damned, who sinned in Adam only in power and possibility. I answer:
[1.] The place in Ezekiel must be taken thus: The innocent son shall not bear the punishment of his father’s sin: So when God says in the Law, that He will visit the iniquity of fathers upon the children, He speaks of children which walk in their father’s steps, and are partakers of the same fault: But the sons of Adam cannot be said to be innocent, as they which not only sinned in Adam, as in the stock and root of mankind, but also themselves are born stained with the same depravation, and prone to the same sin.
Secondly, I say that that place in Ezekiel makes nothing to the present matter: for he speaks of the sins of the fathers, whose sins are personal, and who in sinning do not sustain the persons of their children.
…
Adam receiued gifts, which as he had for himself, so he should have conveyed them to his posterity, which seeing he lost, it justly comes to pass that his posterity should be deprived of those gifts. But my grandfather or great-grandfather received no supernatural gifts from God, which by an hereditary right they should derive to their posterity.”
.
pp. 63-64
“VII. But to that which was said, that the punishment was greater than the sin, because they which in Adam sinned only in power, are for his sin punished in act; it is easy to answer: For we so sinned in Adam in power, that also the sin was in us [coming into existence in this world] in act: neither do we only bear the punishment of another’s sin, but also of our own.”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 2
section 22, pp. 458-9
“From these things, what they object to the contrary can be dealt with easily, namely:
(1) The primary-first motions of sins or of concupiscence, although they lack prior consent, nevertheless do not lack all consent.
(2) That man is a rational being. For it does not follow from this that all his acts are rational or voluntary. For there are also natural acts, such as falling down, and those things for example that are committed during sleep.
I would not say that all acts of the will flow from the prior consent of the will; it is sufficient that they have concomitant consent. This can also be responded regarding original sin: for that also has the concomitant consent of the will, although it does not have antecedent consent.”
.
section 23, pp. 459-60
“Nor is it a hindrance:
(1) That it [Original Sin] was not voluntary in every way, for it is sufficient:
(a) for it to be voluntary antecedently in the cause, namely in our first parents;
(b) for it to be voluntary concomitantly in their posterity themselves, insofar as it exists in them not against the will, but with it. I need not mention that
(c) lawlessness is sufficient for the constitution of sin.
(2) That the law nowhere prohibits being born with sin; for it is sufficient that it everywhere prohibits existing with sin, and in particular, wrongly coveting (Ex. 20:17; Rom. 7:7).
…
(9) That concupiscence is said to produce sin (James 1:14); since nothing hinders sin from producing sin, that is, inchoate sin from producing consummated sin.”
.
.
On the Propagation of Original Sin as Corruption
Order of
Articles 1
Quotes 2
.
Articles
1600’s
Baron, Robert – Philosophy, the Handmaiden of Theology: a Pious & Sober Explanation of Philosophical Questions that Frequently occur in Theological Disputations 2nd ed. trans. AI (1621; Robinson & Davis, 1658), 2nd Exercise, Soul’s Origin & Propagation of Sin Latin Baron was a creationist as regards the soul.
6. Whether the preceding doctrine removes the propagation of original sin [No] 56
7. Arguments which are usually brought against the preceding doctrine on native corruption’s propagation through the parents’ seed are solved 58
8. Some questions on the propagation of original sin are
proposed and solved 61-62
9. The final arguments which are usually brought against the creation and infusion of the soul are dissolved 62
10. Whether a more convenient or more expeditious reason could be given for the transmission of concupiscence, or the propensity to evil, than the one we have said is the third part of original sin [No] 64
11. Two other opinions on the transmission of sin are considered 66
12. It is shown that those who attack the creation of souls disagree much among themselves; and the first three of their opinions on the soul’s origin are confuted 70
13. Fourth opinion, of [the Lutheran] Balthasar Meisner, is refuted 70
14. Fifth opinion, of Timothy Bright, is confuted 74
15. All opinions on traducianism have been confuted; They cannot explain sin’s propagation more safely or easily than we 77
Baron (c.1596-1639) was a Scottish minister, theologian and one of the Aberdeen doctors.
.
Quotes
Order of
Whitaker
Tronchin
.
1500’s
William Whitaker
A Treatise on Original Sin… against the three first books of Thomas Stapleton on the Whole Doctrine of Justification presently controverted (d. 1595; Legat, 1600), bk. 1, ch. 8, ‘How original sin is derived to us and contracted by us’, p. 31 trans. AI Latin
“That original sin is derived to us, and inheres deeply fixed within us, is more than clear enough; but how it was propagated from Adam to his posterity ought to be believed rather than investigated, and can be investigated more easily than it can be understood, and is better understood than it is explained.
It is not so much our concern now to care how we fell into this evil, as to be freed from it; just as Augustine relates of the one who had fallen into a well: to someone admiring how he could have fallen into the well, he said, “You think about how to free me from here, not ask how I fell in here.”
And there is indeed great obscurity and difficulty in the matter, as Augustine acutely said in his Sermons for the People, “Nothing is better known for preaching than original sin, nothing more secret for understanding.” What others have thought can be more easily criticized than it can be taught what ought to be thought. Augustine discussed this question at length, yet could not satisfy himself.
The Pelagians contended that sin could not be propagated with nature; others raised questions about the transmission of the soul; others defended both that souls are created and that sin is transmitted by generation, an opinion which Augustine, although he did not dare to pronounce it the truest of all, nevertheless leaves free to each.
In the first place, the heresy of the Pelagians, who remove sin from nature, must be exploded. But the transmission of souls seems to me both incredible and most absurd, when I consider that divine nature of the soul, whose powers are such that no carnal substance could pour them forth or procreate them from itself. But that is not a question for us to treat now. Surely, if souls could be transmitted and generated, we would labor less over the propagation of sin.”
.
1600’s
Theodore Tronchin
Theological Theses on Original Sin trans. AI (Geneva: de la Planche, 1625), pp. 4, 7 Tronchin (1582-1657) was a professor of Hebrew and theology at Geneva.
“VI… And certainly, everything begotten is similar to the one begetting, not only according to essence, but also according to the accidents proper to the species, whether innate or adventitious. But we are all born of corrupt parents; whence Adam is said to have begotten a son in his own likeness (Gen. 5:3). Finally, the actual sins which flourish in all necessarily require some cause: where there are bad fruits, there is a rotten tree (Mt. 7:17).
…
VIII. Whence it follows that it [original sin] is… an accidental or adventitious contagion adhering in human nature, rendering it both evil and guilty.
…
XXIII. 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.”
.
.
On Original Sin in Infants
Quotes
Order of
Musculus
Du Moulin
.
1500’s
Wolfgang Musculus
Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), The Tenth Precept, fol. 103.a – 104.a
“Before the sin of our first parents, the concupiscence in our nature was simple, natural, orderly (and necessary, like as other affections were, so that it was subject unto no malice: such as that which is in us yet, as when we be hungry we be desire meat; when we thirst, drink; when we be a cold, we desire warmth; when we be too hot, we desire to be cooled; when we be in prison, we desire liberty; when we be sick, we desire health etc. and this we do by the only course of nature, without any matter of sin. But after that our first parents had drunk of the poison of the Serpent, this strength of concupiscence is depraved in our hearts, and thereby it came that (passing the limits of nature and necessity) it extends itself unto those things which it is not lawful to desire: for that it is not lawful to take things away which pertain to others.
Therefore the affections [properties] of concupiscence are of two sorts, natural and corrupt. The natural be set in us by God, and so much not unlawful, but that they be also necessary. Wherefore they do very unadvisedly teach us which do refer the crying of infants when they be hungry and desire meat unto the forbidden concupiscence and do ascribe them unto original sin. The corrupt affections of concupiscence be they when the limits of necessity are exceeded and men follow pleasures, curiosity, glory, ambition and other vices, and that contrary unto the law of charity and the purity of holiness.”
.
1600’s
Pierre Du Moulin
The Anatomy of Arminianism… (1619; London, 1620), ch. 10, p. 65
“III. As therefore the eggs of the asp are justly broken, and serpents new bred are justly killed, although they have yet poisoned none; so infants are rightly obnoxious and subject to punishments: For although they have not yet sinned in act, yet there is in them that contagious pestilence and that natural proneness to sin.”
.
.
On the Objection, “But herein we would be unable to not sin, and hence could not be held morally guilty for sin”; and on Physical vs. Moral Inability
See also ‘Natural vs. Moral Inability’.
.
Quote
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
“But the example of him whose eyes are put out as a punishment for a crime, and who cannot justly be commanded to see, is inept and foreign to the present matter. Because a blind man is not bound to see; but one born in original sin is bound to be just and without sin, for from this obligation a rational creature is never released.
Add to this that he who has been deprived of his eyes by a judge is blind involuntarily, and would wish for the recovery of his sight at a great price. But men born in sin are voluntarily evil, and rejoice in their own vice, and hate remedies.”
.
.
Contra Romanism on Original Sin
Quotes
Order of
Whitaker
Spanheim
.
1500’s
William Whitaker
A Treatise on Original Sin… (d. 1595; Legat, 1600), bk. 1, ch. 7, p. 22 trans. AI
“Does this name of ‘imputation’ offend you [a Romanist] in this cause also? Then hear Lyranus (in Rom. 5):
“The sin of Adam is imputed to all descending from him according to the power of generation, because they are thus his members; on account of which it is called original sin.”
If he seems a little too obsolete to you, I will refer you to two of the firmest columns of the Pontifical Church, Cajetan and Bellarmine. Cajetan thus:
“The punishment of death inflicted on him for the whole posterity, testifies that the sin of which it is the punishment is imputed to him and to the whole posterity” (on Rom. 5).
Bellarmine similarly:
“Adam alone committed it with an actual will; but to us it is communicated through generation, in the way that which has passed can be communicated, namely, by imputation” (tome 3, bk. 5, On the Loss of Grace, ch. 17).
Original sin is an inherent and native iniquity; but yet that actual and free transgression of Adam is imputed to us. For we would be held neither by any guilt nor by any iniquity contracted from it, unless that act by which Adam violated the precept of God were ascribed to us by imputation.”
.
1600’s
Friedrich Spanheim
Miscellaneous theological Disputations, pt. 1 (d. 1649; Geneva: Chouët, 1652), ‘Disputation on Original Sin’ trans. AI by Roman Prestarri at Confessionally Reformed Theology Latin
“4. Papists indeed seem to reject the negative [of the question whether original sin exists], yet they foster such opinions concerning this sin as in fact overturn that sin while they teach it to be less than any venial sin, with Aquinas the prince of their school and his other sectaries, and thus not to merit eternal death; indeed they want this to be only punishment, not guilt before the free assent of the will. Add the ὕπουλα [treacherous] dogmas:
1. That concupiscence is not sin formally, but only originally and effectively so called, or terminatively, because it is from sin, and from it sin [comes]. Nor does it have anything of the character of sin formally, except what is voluntary [in persons sinning].
2. That naturals [natural powers] remained whole after the Fall, and thus free will is given even in the unregenerate in order to spiritual good. See Bellarmine, bk. 1, On the Loss of Grace, ch. 12.”
.
Article
1600’s
Du Moulin, Pierre – ch. 1, ‘In which the question is examined, whether there is original sin, in whom it exists, and whether it is removed by
Baptism. Only Christ is excepted from this stain. Not even the
Virgin Mary was immune from it’ in An Untying of Grave Questions (Leiden: Elzevirana, 1632), Treatise 5, on Original Sin, trans. AI Latin
.
Book
1500’s
Whitaker, William – A Treatise on Original Sin… against the three first books of Thomas Stapleton on the Whole Doctrine of Justification presently controverted (d. 1595; Legat, 1600) 175 pp.
.
Latin
1500’s
Zwingli, Ulrich – Declaration on Original Sin to Urbanus Rhegius in Opera, vol. 2
.
1600’s
.Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – ch. 10, ‘Of Original Sin’ in Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’, pp. 205-27
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 6, ‘On Original Sin’ in The Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668), pp. 310-25
Voet, Gisbert
Voet, Gisbert – 2. ‘Of Original Sin’ in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 4 Abbr.
Whether it may be? & What it is?
Of the Subject
Of the Causes & the Propagation
Of the Adjuncts & Effects
p. 749 in ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’ in Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667)
.
.
.
“For it is better to bring good from evil than to never permit evil to be.”
“Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere.”
“But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Rom. 5:20-21
.
.
.
Related Pages