ten's, cum Ecclesiarum et Dootonim Protestantium consensu, ex scriptis eoriiin ah Andrea Riveto collecto." This treatise is con- tained in the third volume of the folio edition of his works. His colleagues in the University pubHshed their formal indorsement of his woi'k, and earnestly coumiended it as an antidote to the new doctrine of J'lacrous. The theologians of tiie other universities of Holland joined in this condemnation of the doctrine of mediate im- l)utatii)n. They call it the (.vfyqp.a Imputationis Mediate a " fici'Jnc- um nudiratis indecentis tegumentum," and insist that the imputation of Adam's sin is no more founded on our inherent corruption than the imputaMou of Christ s righteousness is founded on our inherent holiness. "Quomodo et justitiaChristi electis imputatur, non mediate per renovationem et obedientiam horuni propriam, sed immediate, ad quam Inec ipsa propria eorum obedientia demum subsequitur." ^ The.se two great doctrines v»'^ere regarded as inseparably united. The Protestant theologians agree in holding that "• Lnputatio justitiaa Cliristi et culpse Adami pari passu ambulant, et vel utraquo ruit, vel utraque agnosci debet."''*
Mediate Imputation oiitside of the French Church.
Although the doctrine of mediate imputation was thus generally condenmed both by the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, it found some distinguished advocates beyond the pale of the French Church. The younger Vitringa, Venema, and Stapfer, in his "Polemical Theology," gave it their sanction. From the last named author it was adopted by President Edwards, in one chapter of his work on " Original Sin." It appears there, however, merely as an excres- cence. It was not adopted into his system so as to qualify his theological views on other doctrines. Although President Edwards does clearly commit himself to the doctrine of Plac^eus, as he says,' " that the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt conse- quetit,''' nevertheless he expressly teaches the doctrine of imme- diate imputation formally and at length in other portions of that work. (1.) He argues through a whole section to prove the federal headship of Adam. (2.) He holds that the threatening of death made to Adam included the loss of original righteousness and spiritual death. (8.) That that threatening included his pos- terity, and that the evils which they suffer in consequence of hia Fiin are truly penal. If this be so, if the loss of original righteous-
1 De Moor, Commentririus in Maickii Compendium, cap. xv. § 32, vol. iii. p. 280.
2 Ihid. vol iii. p. 255.
8 Original Sin, iv. iii. ; Works, edit. N. Y. 1829, vol. li. p. 544.
208 PART II. Cn. Vm. — SIN.
ness and inlierent depravity are penal, they suppose antecedent guilt. That is, a guilt antecedent, and not consequent to the exist- ence and view of the depravity. (4.) In his exposition of Rom. V. 12—21, he expressly teaches the common doctrine, and says, "As this place in general is very full and plain, so the doctrine of the corruption of nature, as derived from Adam, and also the im- putation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in it. The impu- tation of Adam's one transgression, is indeed most directly and frequently asserted. We are here assured that by one man's sin death passed on all; all being adjudged to this punishment as having sinned (so it is implied) in that one man's sin. And it is repeated, over and over, that all are condemned, many are dead, many made sinners, etc., by one man's offence, by the disobedience of one, and by one offence."^ As guilt precedes punishment, if, as Edwards says, depravity or spiritual death is a punishment, then the impu- tation of the guilt of Adam's first sin precedes depravity, and is not consequent upon it. This is the current representation through- out the work on Original Sin. It is only when in answer to tiie objection that it is unjust that we should be punished for the sin of Adam, that he enters on an abstruse metaphysical discussion on the nature of oneness or identity, and tries to prove '^ that Adam and his posterity are one, and not distinct agents. It is, thei'efore, after all, realism, rather than mediate imputation, that Edwards i'oi the time adopted. Placaeus and his associates, in order to defend the ground which they had taken, appealed to many passages in the writings of earlier theologians which seemed to ignore the im- mediate imj^utation of Adam's sin, and to place the condemnation of the race mainly, if not exclusively, upon the hereditary depravity derived from our first parent. Such passages were easily to be found, and they are easily accounted for without assmning, con- trary to tlie clearest evidence, that the direct imputation of Adam's sin was either doubted or denied. Before Arius arose with the direct denial of the true divinity of Christ and of the doctrine of the Trinity, the language of ecclesiastical writers was confused and contradictory. In like manner, even in the Latin Church, and in the writings of Augustine himself, much may be found, before the rise of the Pelagian controversy, which it is hard to reconcile with the Augustinian system. Augustine was obliged to puhlish a volume of retractions, and in many cases where he had nothing to retract, he found much to modify and explain. It is not won- derful, therefore, that before any one openly denied the doctrine
1 Original Sin, ill. i.; Works, vol. ii. p. 512. 2 Jbid. p. 546.