28. What is the theory which assumes that the sin of Adam was literally and strictly the sin of the whole race, and what are the principal objections to it ?
This is identical with the realistic theory, so prominent in scholastic theology and mediseval philosophy, which assumes that universals as genera, species, etc., are objective realities. Accord- ing to this view human nature is a substance, or essence, created and concentrated in the first instance in the person of Adam, and from him transmitted to all his descendants. The same numeri- cal substance which now subsists in individual men, it is asserted, sinned in Adam. His sin, therefore, was as much and as truly ours as it was his. It is imputed to us because it is ours, as it was imputed to him because it was his.
The principal objections to this theory are, 1st, it is an un-
IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 245
supported hypothesis. There can be no evidence of any such generic human nature, if all known phenomena can be otherwise accounted for. But all the facts as to the permanence of species and the propagation of peculiarities of nature can be explained as well without as with this hypothesis. And if not capable of proof by observation it can not be proved from Scripture, because it is not the design of the Bible to teach metaphysics. 2d. It is rationalistic to make a philosophical assumption of this kind the controling principle in interpreting the whole doctrine of the fall and redemption of man. 3d. The theoiy that community in a propagated nature constitutes the identity of all those to whom that nature is communicated, and involves them all in the rela- tions, moral and legal, of their common progenitor, leads to manifold absurdities and contradictions. There is no reason why the application of this principle should be restricted to the single case of Adam. The Hebrews were in Abraham, so far as com- munity of nature was concerned, as much as mankind were in Adam. The common consciousness of mankind testifies that we are not involved in the moral character and conduct of each one of our progenitors in consequence of our derivation of existence from them. The distinction between acts of nature and personal acts, by which this conclusion is sought to be avoided, means nothing. It besides contradicts the consciousness of men to say that we should suffer remorse and self-condemnation for Adam's sin. Unless the understanding is confused the conscience can de- liver no such verdict. 4th. The principle that Grod can not, on the ground of representation, or legal and federal union, regard and treat those not personally guilty as guilty, and those not per- sonally righteous as righteous, which lies at the foundation of this whole theory, is contrary to the repeated and express chela- tions of Scripture, and to the facts of providence. The Bible distinctly asserts that the sin of Adam, as something out of our- selves, is the ground of our condemnation, and that the righteous- ness of Christ, as something not subjectively ours, is the ground of our justification. But if the principle above stated be true, it would necessarily follow, (1.) if God can not regard and treat men otherwise than according to their personal character, or sub- jective state, then Christ did not bear our sins, nor are we treated as righteous on the ground of his righteousness, i. e.} there can
246 sin.
be no true atonement ; or (2.) Christ, in virtue of his community of nature with us, was personally criminal, in the moral sense of the word, and for all the sins committed in that nature ; and we, in virtue of our union with him, are personally and subjectively righteous. Our participation of Christ's righteousness is declared by Scripture to be analogous to our participation of Adam's sin. If, therefore, we sinned Adam's sin, we wrought Christ's righte- ousness. If we are condemned for Adam's sin, because that sin determined and constituted our moral character, then we are jus- tified for Christ's righteousness, because it constituted our moral character. The believer, hence, has no ground of confidence beyond his own personal holiness. — Dr. Hodge, Bib. Kep., April, 1860.
CHAPTER XVII.
ORIGINAL SIN.
1. How is original sin to be defined ?
See Confession of Faith, Chapter VI., L. Cat., questions 25,
26, S. Cat., question 18.
The phrase, original sin, is used sometimes to include the judicial imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin, as well as the hereditary moral corruption, common to all his descendants, which is one of the consequences of that imputation. More strictly, however, the phrase original sin designates only the hereditary moral corruption common to all men from birth.
In the definition of this doctrine we deny —
1st. That this corruption is in any sense physical, that it in- heres in the essence of the soul, or in any of its natural faculties as such.