The Pulpit Commentary — Mark — Volume 1 — Section 83

covenant head and representative of his descendants, the guilt or punishableness of his first sin was incurred by them, nnteccdently to their own actual transgressions and that the corruption of their nature was the first part of that punishmcnt--which is known as the doctrine of antenatal forfeiture; or whether we agree with Placreus and the New England root theory, which, denying the doctrine just stated, affirms that, while A.dam was punished for his own sin, his descendants are not punishable for it, but derive from him corrupt natures by ordinary generation, and so, sinnin<> after his example, are punished for their own sin, their progenitor's sin being thu; punished "mediately through, and consequently to, their own sin in compliance with his example." Even this modified view refers the origin of man's sin to the natural descent from A.dam, the organic root, so that, as the sap of a tree passes from the root along the trunk and through the branches and on to the smallest twigs, inherited corruption or derived inherent depravity is traceable, not as a penal consequence of Adam's sin, but a natural consequence of generation by or descent from him. Even on this low ground, according to which the imputation of Adam's first sin is denied, it is admitted that original sin is the inherent hereditary corruption of nature or depravity <lerived from A.dam, just as leprosy, its sorrowful but striking symbol, was hereditary to the fourth generation at least. .An exceptional view, it must be acknowledged, was held by Pelagius and his followers, who denied that man's moral character had suffered any injury from the Fall, or that men were born with less ability to do the will of God or discharge their duty to him than A.dam; and by consequence denied the necessity of Divine grace or any special Divine agency, except indeed to enable men to perform more easily what they could accomplish, though less easily, without it, being thus capable of and by themselves of attaining to a perfectly holy life. Such doctrines, being evidently opposed to the whole scope and many plain statements of Scripture, were condemned by the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, having been vigorously combated and confuted by Augustine till his death in the preceding year, A.D. 430; and thence- forth they disappear till after the Reformation, when they were revived by the Socinians. But even the semi-Pelagians admitted original sin to the extent, at least, that man's moral nature is more or less corrupted by the Fall, and by consequence stands in need of special Divine assistance. Two facts in connection with the introduction of sin, or the entrance of moral evil, into our world a.re undeniable: one is the painful fact that the leprous taint of sin is found more or less on every human being ; the other is equally unquestionable, namely, that man at his creation could not have had th:.t taint, for a polluted creature could not have proceeded from the hands of a pure and holy God. The truth of revelation, then, remains unassailable, when it teaches thai man, by disobedience to his Maker, introduced sin, and by sin destroyed himself. 2. The leJl'f'OSY was (according to some authorities)fearfully contagious; so is sin. It has not only passed, as already intimated, by inheritance from generation to generation, but it passes by contagion from one individual to another individual, or to a number of individuals, for one sinner destroys much good. It spreads from family to family, from house to house, from one homestead to another, yea, from country to country; for "evil communications corrupt good manners." In its transmission through the generations from the Fall to the Flood, it propagated itself so rapidly, and spread so fast and so far that its violence became uncontrollable, and nothing could check or stay its virulence; the only remedy that remained was to sweep away and swallow up in the waters of the Deluge that race of moral invalids, tainted as they were with this inveterate and deadly distemper. A.nd even the waters of the Flood were powerless to cleanse from this moral corruption, or to wash away the stain of this sin-leprosy. A.gain, soon after this great catastrophe the taint of this old leprosy exhibited unmistakable symptoms, breaking out afresh, and reappearing even in the head of that privileged family which the ark had saved; for Noah, we read, having planted a vineyard, "drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent." We are aware that the con- tagious nature of leprosy is disputed by some, but we prefer the view commonly held on the subject. 3. Leprosy was small at its first appearance ; so, too, is sin. Leprosy commenced with e. rising in the skin of the flesh, or a single bright spot. It was so small nt the beginning as to be barely perceptible. A. few specks or reddish spots on the skin were nil that appeared at the outset. These spots became more numerous; they grew larger, blenc.bing the hairs that camo in their way; they overspread the body, crusting it with so TllE GOSPEL AOOORDING TO BT. MAilf(. [011, I, 1-48,