præditus sit, supra omnia sensibilia dignitate evehitur. Ea enim, præter hominem, universa intellectu carent, qui ex primis dotibus numinis præcipuus est. Ipsum igitur dum cum numine communem, quantumvis mutuo, habet; jam tantum est nobilior homo reliquis sensibilibus, quanto lux tenebris, volucres reptilibus, et anima corpore. Non est ergo vel imprudentiæ vel indignationis Dei opus homo sic factus, ut labi possit, quemadmodum et de angelo sentiendum est: quum enim soli cum numine intellectum habent, dotem divinissimam, et nihil tam infirmum ac humile est, quod non sit in suo genere et optimum et utilissimum: jam et homo erit in sua classe absolutissime divina providentia factus. Quæ ergo imprudentes miseriæ damus, felicitatis sunt. Labi potuisse a numine est inditum; fuit ergo insignis alicujus boni causa. So, too, Calvin, ubi supra. Bucanus, iii. (in Schweizer, i. 188): Adamum flexibilem fecit, non talem, qui non posset nec vellet unquam peccare. Immutabilem esse solius Dei est. Keckermann, 141, and others, cited by Schweizer, ubi supra. Comp. Heppe, 384, sq., 354, sq.

• The Arminian symbols (Confess. Remonstrant. 5. 5. and Apol. Confess. p. 60, quoted by Winer, p. 52), agree with Calvin in insisting on the original freedom of the will, but reject on this very account the notion of a primitive state of perfect holiness, because if there had been such, man could not have sinned. Thus Limborch, Theolog. Christ. ii. 24, 5, shows that that state of innocence of our first parents to which so much importance is attached, must have been united with ignorance (nesciebant nuditatem esse indecoram); otherwise they would have known that serpents cannot speak, and would have been led to suspect something wrong! Limborch admitted that man would not have died, if he had not sinned, but he objected to the inference which orthodox theologians drew from it-viz., that immortality originally belonged to the nature of man; he thought that God would have protected him against death.

⚫ Cat. Racov. p. 18 (quoted by Winer, p. 52). Socinus, Præl. c. 3: Si justitiæ originalis nomine eam conditionem intelligunt, ut non posset peccare, eam certe non habuit Adamus, cum eum peccasse constet; neque enim peccasset, nisi prius peccare potuisset......Concludamus igitur, Adamum etiam antequam mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, revera justum non fuisse, cum nec impeccabilis esset nec ullam peccandi occasionem habuisset, vel certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constet, eum ulla ratione a peccatis abstinuisse. Compare also Cat. Racov. Qu. 22 (the last revision, as quoted by Winer, 1. c.) Fock, Socinianismus, p. 472, sq.

• Catechismus Roman. Qu. 40......ut homo nihil habet commune cum immortalitate. Qu. 41: Cur nihil habet commune homo cum immortalitate? Idcirco quod ab initio de humo formatus proptereaque mortalis creatus fuerit. Socinus, De Statu primi Hominis ante Lapsum (in opposition to Francis Pucci of Florence), 1578, in the Bibl. Fratr. Polon. ii. p. 253, ss., p. 258 Nego, hominem a Deo immortalem fuisse creatum.-But he did not mean to say, eum ab ipso creationis initio morti penitus fuisse obnoxium, adeo ut omnino ei moriendum esset, sed tantummodo sua natura morti fuisse

On the question, how far other Protestants taught that man, posse non mori, see Winer, p. 52.

subjectum, et nonnisi divina gratia, qua in ipsa creatione donatus non fuerat, a morte immunem perpetuo esse potuisse. In support of his opinion he appealed to 1 Cor. xv. 22, and 2 Tim. i. 10. By thus considering Christ as the true author of life, he advocated the principles of supernaturalism. On similar views entertained by earlier theologians, see Vol. i. § 58, pp. 158-9, and Fock, Socinianismus, p. 483, sq. The latter says (p. 490): "The idea that man became mortal at some definite point of time, being at first immortal, was so much opposed to all sound views of nature, that a system which declared that reason was its guide, could not be satisfied with it. On the other side, however, we must not overlook the fact that the orthodox doctrine of man's immortality in his primeval estate has an essential speculative kernel, viz., that immortality belongs to the very idea of human nature."

Concerning the opinions of the Mennonites, the Quakers, and the theologians of the Greek Church, which are of less importance, see Winer, 1. c.

How far Calixtus recognized the justitia originalis as a donum supernaturale, and on this account was accused of papistry by his opponents, see in the Consensus Repet., Punctum 17 (Henke's edition, p. 14); and Schmid, u. s., 363.

§ 246.

THE FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. (ORIGINAL SIN.)

(Definitions of the Symbols.)

In connection with these opinions respecting the original state of man, was developed the Protestant doctrine concerning the fall, as propounded in most of the works of the reformers,' as well as in the symbolical books of the churches. This doctrine represented the fall of man as a fact by which his inmost nature was corrupted, his original righteousness changed into absolute depravity, and whose consequences have so affected his descendants, as to expose them, in their natural condition, to condemnation, and to make them unable to do anything that is truly good. The views of Roman Catholics were less rigid in their opinion the fall of man caused only the loss of the gifts of divine grace, the natural consequences of which are his imperfections and infirmity. The Arminians entertained still milder views, while the Socinians bordered more than any other sect upon Pelagianism. In accordance with some earlier theologians, they declared corporeal death to be the chief consequence of the first sin, and derived the existence of moral infirmity merely from the habit of sinning, but not from the sin of Adam.

4

The strictly Augustinian view of Luther stood in intimate connection with his whole tone of mind, as well as with the experience of his life. It

*

was confirmed by the contests which he maintained against the superficial Pelagian doctrine of his opponents, concerning the meritoriousness of works. He developed his principles especially in his controversy with Erasmus, whose views laid down in his treatise, De libero Arbitrio, 1524, he combated in his work, De servo Arbitrio, 1525, in opposition to which Erasmus composed the Hyperaspistes, 1526. In other passages Luther also uses very strong language about original sin, which he calls, among other things, the leaven of the devil, with which our nature is poisoned; see Walch., ii. 2146 sq., vi. 396, xi. 2605; and Schenkel, ii. 16 sq. Heppe, 388. ["Original sin is the real and chief sin; if that were not, there were no actual sins. This sin is not committed like other sins; but it is, it lives, and does all other sins, and is the essential sin; one which does not merely sin an hour or any given time, but wherever and as long as the person lives, there too is sin." Werke, xi. 396. See also Luther's Lehre von der Gnade, in the Theologische Zeitschrift, 1860.] Melancthon, in the first edition of his Loci, adopted the doctrine of the total corruption of mankind, and the lack of free will (Edit. Augusti, p. 18 ss), p. 19: Jam posteaquam deliquit Adam, aversatus est Deus hominem, ut non adsit ei gubernator Dei spiritus. Ita fit, ut anima, luce vitaque cœlesti carens, excœcetur et sese ardentissime amet, sua quærat, non cupiat, non velit, nisi carnalia, etc. Ibid. : Sicut in igni est genuina vis, qua sursum fertur, sicut in magnete est genuina vis, qua ad se ferrum trahit, ita est in homine nativa vis ad peccandum.-In his opinion as in that of Luther, the virtues of the Gentiles are only-virtutum umbræ. Thus Socrates, Cato, and others, were only virtuous from ambition....Pag. 23: Ut rem omnem velut in compendium cogam, omnes homines per vires naturæ vere semperque peccatores sunt et peccant. Comp. Galle's Melancthon, p. 237, ss. [Melancthon on the Nature of Sin, in Theological Essays from the Princeton Review, New York, 1846, pp. 218-228.] Respecting the modifications which occur in later editions of his work, see Galle, p. 266, ss., and Heppe, 386.-Zwingle's views were more mild than those of any of the other reformers upon the subject of original sin; he considered it to be \ actual sin only in a certain sense. Thus in his Fidei Ratio, addressed to Charles V. (Opera, iv. p. 6): De originali peccato sic sentio: Peccatum vere dicitur, cum contra legem itum est; ubi enim non lex est, ibi non est prævaricatio, et ubi non est prævaricatio, ibi non est peccatum proprie captum, quatenus scilicet peccatum, scelus, crimen, facinus aut reatus est. Patrem igitur nostrum peccavisse fateor peccatum, quod vere peccatum est, scelus scilicet, crimen ac nefas. At qui ex isto prognati sunt, non hoc modo peccarunt; quis enim nostrum in paradiso pomum vetitum depopulatus est dentibus? Velimus igitur nolimus, admittere cogimur, peccatum originale, ut est in filiis Adæ, non proprium peccatum esse, quomodo jam expositum est; non enim est facinus contra legem. Morbus igitur est proprie et conditio: morbus, quia, sicut ille ex amore sui lapsus est, ita et nos labimur; conditio, quia, sicut ille servus est factus et morti obnoxius, sic et nos servi et filii iræ nascimur et morti obnoxii. (An illustration of a servant, who is made a prisoner of war with his master, but without guilt of his own.)

* In this view Luther goes even beyond Augustine; see Schenkel, ii. p. 17.

Comp. Zwingle, De Peccato originali, ad Urbanum Rhegium, Opera, iii. p. 627, sq. Pag. 628: Quid enim brevius aut clarius dici potuit quam originale peccatum non esse peccatum, sed morbum, et Christianorum liberos propter morbum istum non addicti æterno supplicio? Contra vero, quid imbecillius dici potuit et a canonica scriptura alienius, quam. . . . non tantum esse morbum, sed etiam reatum? Pag. 629: Morti autem vocabulo hic.. utimur..quatenus cum vitio conjunctus est, eoque perpetuo, ut genti alicui translatitium est balbutire, cœcutire, podagra laborare. Quod malum naturale defectum solemus germanice ein natürlichen Bresten appellare, quo nemo vel pejor vel sceleratior existimatur: non enim possunt in crimen aut culpam rapi, quæ natura adsunt. Si ergo diximus originalem contagionem morbum esse, non peccatum, quod peccatum cum culpa conjunctum est; culpa vero ex commisso vel admisso ejus nascitur, qui facinus designavit. (Example of one born in slavery.) Compare his work, Vom Kindertouf (Pædobaptism), Werke, ii. 1, p. 287, sq.: “Original sin is nothing but a natural defect derived from Adam....such a defect (Bresten) as one has by birth, or acquires from any accident." "The difference," says Schweizer, i. 46," of Zwingle's view from the common one is a fact of no great moment" (?). One of the chief differences is this, that Zwingle does not view original sin as imputed to man; that original sin, as such, is not under condemnation. Compare the further passages, and the defence of Zwingle by the Reformed. theologians (e. g. Pictet), in Schweizer, ubi supra, and in Schenkel, ii. 29, sq. As to the extent to which Zwingle put the essence of sin in the bodily constitution (the flesh), see ibid. 34. At any rate, with all the reformers, he held to the absolute sinfulness and condemnation of man in the sight of God; see his treatise on Divine and Human Justice (Werke, i. 435): “We are all criminal before God.... and as our crimes are known to God alone, so He alone judges them....I call human righteousness, a poor defective righteousness, because a man may well be just and esteemed before men, who is not just in the sight of God: for no man is just before God....it is not possible for a man to be inwardly pious, pure and clean, according to divine righteousness." Hence, he is no Pelagian! Calvin is here intermediate between Luther and Zwingle. Inst. II. 1, § 6 (ed. Gen. 1550, f.): Non aliter interpretari licet quod dicitur, nos in Adam mortuos esse, quam quod ipse peccando non sibi tantum cladem ac ruinam ascivit, sed naturam quoque nostram in simile præcipitavit exitium. Neque id suo unius vitio, quod nihil ad nos pertineat, sed quoniam universum suum semen ea, in quam lapsus erat vitiositate, infecit....Sic ergo se corrupit Adam, ut ab eo transierit in totam sobolem contagio, etc. § 8: Videtur ergo peccatum originale hereditaria naturæ nostræ pravitas et corruptio in omnes animæ partes diffusa....Quare qui peccatum originale definierunt carentiam justitiæ origi nalis, quam inesse nobis oportebat, quamquam id totum complectuntur, quod in re est, non tamen satis significanter vim atque energiam ipsius expresserunt. Non enim natura nostra boni tantum inops et vacua est, sed malorum omnium adeo fertilis et ferax, ut otiosa esse non possit. Qui dixerunt, esse concupiscentiam, non nimis alieno verbo usi sunt, si modo adderetur (quod minime conceditur a plerisque), quidquid in homine est, ab intellectu ad voluntatem, ab anima ad carnem usque, hac concupiscentia inquinatum

refertumque esse, aut, ut brevius absolvatur, totum hominem non aliud ex se ipso esse quam concupiscentiam. That sounds like Flacianism; but see also § 11: A natura fluxisse (peccatum) negamus, ut significemus adventitiam magis esse qualitatem, quæ homini acciderit, quam substantialem proprietatem, quam ab initio induerit. Vocamus tamen naturalem, ne quis ab unoquoque prava consuetudine comparari putet, quam hæreditario jure universos comprehensos teneat. §9: Neque enim appetitus tantum eum (Adamum) illexit, sed arcem ipsam mentis occupavit nefanda impietas et ad cor intimum penetravit superbia, ut frigidum sit ac stultum, corruptelam, quæ inde manavit, ad sensuales tantum, ut vocant, motus restringere. Comp. Schenkel, ii. 37, sq.

As regards the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church, see Confessio August. Art. 2: Docent, quod post lapsum Adæ omnes homines, secundum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, h. e. sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum et cum concupiscentia, quodque hic morbus seu vitium originis vere sit peccatum, damnans et afferens nunc quoque æternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spir. S. Damnant Pelagianos et alios, qui vitium originis negant esse peccatum, et, ut extenuent gloriam meriti et beneficiorum Christi, disputant hominem propriis viribus rationis coram Deo justificari posse. Comp. Apol. Art. 1, 5, Art. Smalcald. p. 317: Peccatum hæreditarium tam profunda et tetra est corruptio naturæ, ut nullius hominis ratione intelligi possit, sed ex Scripturæ patefactione agnoscenda et credenda sit. Formula Conc. p. 574: Credimus peccatum originis non esse levem, sed tam profundam humanæ naturæ corruptionem, quæ nihil sanum, nihil incorruptum in corpore et anima hominis, atque adeo in interioribus et exterioribus viribus ejus, reliquit.-According to p. 640, nothing is left to man but impotentia et ineptitudo, advvauía et stupidites, qua homo ad omnia divina seu spiritualia sit prorsus ineptus.... In aliis enim externis hujus mundi rebus, quæ rationi subjectæ sunt, relictum est homini adhuc aliquid intellectus, virium et facultatum, etsi hæ etiam miseræ reliquiæ valde sunt debiles, et quidem hæc ipsa quantulacunque per morbum illum hæreditarium veneno infecta sunt atque contaminata, ut coram Deo nullius momenti sint. Respecting the Symbolical Books of the Reformed Church, comp. Confess. Basil. I. Art. 2: Man has wilfully committed sin, and by his fall brought corruption upon the whole human race, exposed it to condemnation, weakened our nature, and introduced such a tendency to sin, that if the Holy Spirit does not restore it, man by himself neither will nor can do good. Conf. Helv. II. 8: Peccatum autem intelligimus esse nativam illam hominis corruptionem ex primis nostris parentibus in nos omnes derivatam vel propagatam, qua concupiscentiis pravis immersi et a bono aversi, ad omne vero malum propensi, pleni omni nequitia, diffidentia, contemtu et odio Dei, nihil boni ex nobis ipsis facere, imo ne cogitare quidem possumus. Cap. 9:.......... Non sublatus est quidem homini intellectus, non erepta ei voluntas et prorsus in lapidem vel truncum est commutatus. Ceterum illa ita sunt immutata et imminuta in homine, ut non possint amplius, quod potuerunt ante lapsum. Intellectus enim obscuratus est, voluntas vero ex libera facta est voluntas serva. Nam servit peccato, non nolens sed volens. Etenim voluntas, non noluntas dicitur. Ergo quoad malum sive peccatam homo non coactus vel a Deo, vel a Diabolo, sed sua sponte malum facit et hac parte liberrimi est