« PrécédentContinuer »
ther the soul of a son proceeds by Divine wrath, and producing in us derivation or transmission from those works which the Scripture the soul of the father, because the calls works of the flesh.' And this soul is the principal seat of the is indeed what Paul frequently depollution. We ought to be satisfied nominates sin. The works which with this, that the Lord deposited proceed thence, such as adulteries, with Adam the endowments he chose fornications, thefts, hatreds, murto confer on the human nature; and ders, l'evellings, he calls in the therefore that when he lost the fa- same manner "fruits of sin;' alvours he had received, he lost them though they are also called "sins' not only for himself, but for us all. in many passages of Scripture, and Who will be so solicitous about a even by himself. These two things transmission of the soul, when he therefore should be distinctly obbears that Adam received the or- served: first, that our nature being naments that he lost, no less for us so totally vitiated and depraved, than for himself? that they were we are on account of this very corgiven, not to one man only, but to ruption, considered as convicted the whole human nature? There and justly condemned in the sight is nothing absurd therefore, if in of God, to whom nothing is acconsequence of his being spoiled ceptable but righteousness, innoof his dignities, that nature be des- cence, and purity. And this liatitute and poor; if in consequence bleness to punishment arises not of his being polluted with sin, the from the delinquency of another: for whole nature be infected with the when it is said that the sin of Adam contagion. From a putrified root renders us obnoxious to the divine therefore have sprung putrid judgment, it is not to be understood branches, which have transmitted as if we, though innocent, were untheir putrescence to remoter rami- deservedly loaded with the guilt of fications. For the children were his sin; but because we are all sub. so vitiated in their parent, that ject to a curse, in consequence of his they became contagious to their transgression, he is therefore said to descendants: there was in Adam have involved us in guilt. Neversuch a spring of corruption, that theless we derive from him, not only it is transfused from parents to the punishment, but also the pollů. children in a perpetual stream. tion to which the punishment is justBut the cause of the contagion is ly due. Wherefore Augustine, not in the substance of the body or though he frequently calls it the of the soul; but because it was or- sin of another, the more clearly to dained by God, that the gifts which indicate its transinission to us by he conferred on the first man should propagation; yet at the same time by him be preserved or lost both for he also asserts it properly to behimself and for all his posterity. long to every individual. And the
apostle himself expressly declares, VIII.“ To remove all uncer- that death has therefore passed tainty and misunderstanding on upon all men, for that all have this subject, let us define original sinned,'t that is, have been involved sin. It is not my intention to dis- in original sin, and defiled with its cuss all the definitions given by blemishes. And therefore infants writers; I shall only produce, one themselves, as they bring their which I think perfectly consistent condemnation into the world with with the truth. Original sin theré- them, are rendered obnoxious to fore appears to be an heredilary pra- punishinent by their own sinfulvity and corruption of our nature, ness, not by the sinfulness of anodiffused through all the parts of the soul: rendering us obnoxious to the
* Gal. v. 19. Rom, v. 12,
ther. For though they have not yet guilt and its punishment_We afproduced the fruits of their iniquity, firm that Calvin did hold this docyet they have the seed of it within trine, and we appeal to our quotathem; even their whole nature is as tions--Calvin held and taught that it were a seed of sin, and therefore Adam's "guilt, being the origin of cannot but be odious and abomina- that curse which extends to every ble to God. Whence it follows, that part of the world, it is reasonable it is properly accounted sin in the to conclude its propagation to all sight of God, because there could be his offspring;” that is, the guilt as no guilt without crime.”.
well as the curse was propagated to all his offspring in the origi
nal, “ culpa . . propagata fuerit, In view of these quotations, let ad totam ejus sobolem." Again us recite the allegation of the Calvin says, the “ fathers . . . had Christian Observer, with the ex much contention (in regard to heplanation of the term imputation, reditary corruption, which they given by Edwards—"He [Calvin) called original sin] nothing being did not hold the doctrine of the more remote from common sense, imputation of Adam's sin to all than that all should be criminated his posterity;" that is, "he did not on account of the guilt of one, and hold the doctrine of the liableness thus his sin become common." or exposedness in the divine judg.. Here Calvin teaches that the sin, ment of all the posterity of Adam, as well as the guilt, of Adam's to partake of the punishment of transgression, has become comhis first sin.” Now we appeal to mon;" for this is certainly what every candid and intelligent reader he meant to teach in this place; of the foregoing passages from and we shall see that he teaches it Calvin's Institutes, whether it is repeatedly afterward; for Calvin not the very scape of a considera never made that wonderful recent ble part of them, to maintain and discovery, that there may be guilt, prove the very thing which the and liability to punishment, where Observer denies. For ourselves, there is no sin. On the contrary, we honestly declare that we hard in the very last sentence we have ly know what language could be quoted from his Institutes, speakused that would show more unė. ing of the depravity or corruption quivocally than is shown in seve of infants, while yet incapable of ral of the above quoted expres- personal moral action, he says, sions, that the Observer's state 5 whence it follows, that it is proment is groundless, or rather that perly accounted sin in the sight of it is made in direct opposition to God, because there could be no the doctrine of Calvin. Let our guilt without crime--non esset reareaders observe that the question tus absque culpa. Again-Calvin, before us is distinctly this–Did in condemning the reasoning of Calvin hold and teach, that all Pelagius, says, “it was evinced by Adam's posterity shared with him the plain testimony of Scripture, in his first sin, with its guilt and that sin was communicated from punishment, as well as in the de- the first mar to all his posterity's pravity which was its consequence, what can be more explicit than or in which it commenced? As to this, to show that Calvin held that depravity, we suppose we agree the sin of Adam was common to with the Observer. The exact him and to his posterity-not point of difference is-he denies merely quilt, but sin—"sin was that Calvin held the doctrine communicated from the first man that all Adam's posterity share to all his posterity.” We leave to with him in his first sin, in its our readers to remark how fully
« He who pro
our point is maintained by the pa- ately follow it, or with what, as we rallel which Calvin runs between have shown, Calvin elsewhere what we lost in Adam, and what teaches, otherwise than by consi, we regain by Christ; and the exact dering and supposing this to be the similarity in the manner in which meaning of Calvin; namely, that the loss and the gain accrue. Once the guilt of Adam, as an individual, more, Calvin says,
was one thing, and the guilt which nounces that we were all dead in he brought on his posterity was Adam, does also at the same time another thing
the former much plainly declare, that we were im- greater than the latter, but both plicated in the guilt of his sin. real. Take an illustration; alFor no condemnation could reach though we are sensible that no those who were perfectly clear merely human transaction can furfrom all charge of iniquity." We nish an exact parallel to the case know not how it could be more before us. It is easily seen and ad-, unequivocally expressed than it is mitted, that one who has been the in this sentence, that we, that is, sole, and active, and criminal the whole human race, are sharers agent, in bringing loss and ruin on in both the sin and the guilt of our a mercantile company, or a civil first parent, when he apostatized community, in behalf of which he from God. We shall go into no has been fully authorized to act, farther comments on our italicised has “ a personal guilt as an indiquotations, but only commend vidual,” in which no one of the them to the careful investigation company or community shares of our readers, after remarking on with him; and yet, all share with two passages, in which, as him in the loss and ruin which his have already intimated in a note, criminal act or agency occasions. there is some obscurity; and parts So in the case of Adam-his “ perof which, when taken separately, sonal guilt as an individual," in seem to contradict, and have been breaking covenant with his God, alleged as contradicting, the po was probably greater than that of sition which we maintain.
individual of his fallen posteThe first of the passages to rity since;* and this enormous which we allude, is that toward personal guilt of Adam belonged the close of the 6th section, in to himself exclusively; but the which speaking of our being dead guilt of a broken covenant, of ir. Adam,” and “ that his trans- which he was the appointed fedegression not only procured misery ral head, and all its direful conseand ruin for himself, but also pre- quences, are shared in by all his cipitated our nature into similar descendants. We verily believe destruction,” it is immediately that we have here given the meanadded, “and that not by his per- ing which Calvin intended to consonal guilt as an individual, which vey in the passage under considepertains not to us, but because he ration; and we are confirmed in infected all his descendants with this, not only, as we have said, by the corruption into which he had what immediately follows, and by fallen.*" Now we think that the what he had previously taught, but first member of this sentence can- by the second passage to which not be rendered consistent either we have referred. This is found in with the remainder of that sen the eight section, and is introduced tence, and the two which immedi
* We would recommend to such of our * " Neque id suo unius vitio, quod nihil readers as possess Scott's Commentary, ad nos pertineat ; sed quoniam universum to turn to, and read carefully, his notes on semen in quam lapsus erat, vitiositate in Gen. ii. 16, 17; and particularly what he fecit.”
says on Gen. iii. 6. Ch. Adv.-VOL. X,
in explanation of Calvin's far- tion of Calvin's language, in the famed definition of original sin. It place before us, or else regard it stands thus" And this liableness as self-contradictory and paradoxito punishment arises not from the cal in the extreme: and indeed we delinquency of another; for when would be glad to see an attempt it is said that the sin of Adam ren- made to render it consistent with ders us obnoxious to the divine itself, in a manner materially difjudgment, it is not to be under- ferent from the explanation of it stood as if we, though innocent, which we have here given. were undeservedly loaded with the Our readers must now judge, guilt of his sin; but because we whether or not we have proved are all subject to a curse in conse that the Christian Observer is in quence of his transgression, he is error, in saying that “ Calvin did therefore said to have involved us not hold the doctrine of the impuin guilt.
Nevertheless we derive tation of Adam's sïn to all his posfrom him, not only the punish- terity.” We think we have shown ment, but also the pollution to that his personal sin, in all its which the punishment is justly awful malignity and amount, is due.” Here we think it evident, not indeed imputed to every, or that although it is said that the to any individual of his posterity; general "liableness to punishment but that the act by which he broke arises not from the delinquency covenant with his God, is imputed of another”-alieni delicti obliga- to every individual of his descendtio—yet the meaning is, that the ants, without exception; that it is delinquency spoken of was not that regarded as the sin of all, involves of another, considered as an uncon- all in guilt, and renders all subnected individual, in whose sin and ject to the curse, and liable to the guilt others were not associated with punishment due to that act. him, as their head and representative. In the discussion which we are We judge thus, because it follows now closing, we have been carried as a part of the very same sentence, to a much greater length than we that the sin of Adam does actually contemplated when we began to render us
obnoxious to the divine write. But the subject is imporjudgment”-not indeed, as though tant in itself; and the statement of
being innocent we were unde- the Observer is calculated to forservedly loaded with the guilt of tify errors which prevail in our his sin," but because we are not own country. It might be consiinnocent, inasmuch as we were ac dered as at least a circumstance tually connected with him in the vio- of importance, a strong presumplation of covenant obligations; and tion of truth, if one of the great that thus “ we are all subject to a lights of the Protestant reformacurse in consequence of his trans- tion-in doctrinal points the greatgression, and he is said to have in- est of all-did not hold the impuvolved us in guilt.” Take this to be tation of Adam's sin to all his posthe meaning, and then it consistent- terity. We have, therefore, taken ly follows that we derive from Adam some pains to show that he did both “pollution and the punish- hold this doctrine; and have laid ment which is justly its due;" and before our readers a portion of his the reasoning of St. Augustine is reasoning on the subject. Nor pertinently introduced as an illus was Calvin at all singular, in what tration, when he calls it the sin of he taught on this topick. Not another, and yet asserts that it be- only, as we have shown, did the longs to every individual of our Papists embody it in their creed,
It appears to us, that we but we believe there was not one must either adopt this construc- of the Protestant reformers who
did not hold it. We are not con was imputed to his posterity.
Literary and Philosophical Intelligence, etc,
from home, or their poverty. His large
income was expended in this hospitable Extract of a Letter, dated
style of living, in the formation of a vaParis, 20th May. and in the collection of a library, such as
luable private museum of natural history, My last letter was so much occupied few private individuals can boast. with details of the death and funeral of
On the day after his death, the king, on M. Casimir Perier, that I had neither
the report of the new Minister of the Interoom nor leisure to allude to the loss which rior, granted a pension of 6000 francs a this country, or I should rather say, the whole world, has sustained in the death of year to Madame Cuvier, a stretch of the
prerogative which will doubtless be sancthe Baron Cuvier. This distinguished in tioned by the Chambers at the opening of dividual, although claimed by France as a the session, in favour of a lady left under native born citizen, owes his birth and such circumstances without any pecuniaparentage to the town of Stutgard. This,
ry resources. It is also understood that if rightly understood, is rather a credit
M. Cuvier's library and museum will be than otherwise to his adopted country. purchased at the publick expense, as addiThe French, however, as in the case of tions to one or other of the great national M. Benj. Constant, and other distinguish establishments. M. Cuvier had the mised individuals who have flourished among fortune to survive all his children. Two them, do not like to be reminded that they
sons of great promise, died before they can be surpassed by foreigners in any path had completed their tenth year; but the of science or literature, or even in any loss which he felt most keenly, was that of branch of the humblest of the useful arts.
his only daughter, who was suddenly cut In the noblest sense of the term, M. Cu.
off on the eve of her marriage. Madame vier was a liberal. His house, at the Cuvier was the widow of M. de Vancel, Garden of Plants, was always open to at the time of her marriage to the greatmen of science, particularly if they came est naturalist of modern times. Her son, recommended to him by their distance M. de Vancel, having been inspired by M.
Cuvier with a decided tasto for one of the * La plus pure Antiquité a
branches of that science in wbich hia cette imputation du péché d'Adam. adopted father occupied so distinguished