X. 1 Cor. 15:48, as the earthly, such are the earthly. Gen. 5:3, Adam begat children in his own likeness ]בְּדְמוּתוֹ

[בְצַלְמוֹ

XI. The propagation of this depravity is the natural result of a law of our nature, which is in itself salutary (Gen. 1: 28). And the unhappy effects of this law, on the descendents of Adam, can no more be charged on the Author of nature, than that misery can, which, in the course of the operation of these laws, is entailed on the innocent children of such parents as have by their wicked life contracted a hereditary disease.1

XII. In no other way than by the natural inheritance of the sinful propensities of parents by the children, could the necessity of dying have been extended to all men on account of the individual act of transgression by Adam (Rom. 5: 15-17). For it was from this one sin, that the sinful disposition of Adam proceeded; and through him this disposition, which involves the necessity of death, was propagated over the whole human family. This is the only interpretation which accords with the declaration of Paul (Rom. 5: 12—19), that ἁμαρτια [depravity], and through ἁμαρτια, death, were entailed on the whole human family. Moreover, the doctrine of the propagation of depravity by natural generation from Adam, is closely connected with the important doctrine of the gracious provision of God for the redemption of the human family, and in various points of view, tends to throw much light upon this subject.3

2

Jost is disposed almost totally to reject the connexion between the propositions δι' ένος ανθρωπου ἡ ἁμαρτια, και δια της ἁμαρτιας ὁ θανατος, i. e. the connexion between the mortality of mankind and the first sin of Adam, through the instrumental

IX. Innate depravity.-Psalm 51:7, with a sinful nature ]עָווֹן[ I was born, yea, even in my mother's womb I was possessed of it. In the work On the death of Christ (p. 645), this interpretation is vindicated against another which makes David merely mean, that he was an old, hardened sinner. And in the Dissertations on the historical books of the New Test. we have remarked, in commenting on John 9:34, that the words εν ἁμαρτιαις συ εγενηθης όλης, may well be taken in their proper sense: you were born in a sinful state (as this bodily deformity, your blindness, proves)."

66

Kant has asserted, that among all the representations of the propagation of moral evil, that is the most objectionable, by which it is regarded as being inherited from our first parents: for says he, in reference to moral evil, we can say, "quae non fecimus ipsi, vix ea nostra puto," i. e. what we have not done ourselves, can scarcely be regarded as our own. In reply to this, we remark, 3 Just as a particular natural or innate disposition or temperament, renders it more difficult for some men to fulfil the law, than others; so also it is by no means impossible that an undue propensity for the objects of sense ($ 56) may have been inherited from Adam by all his posterity, which renders it, if not impossible, yet very difficult for them to fulfil the law. This innate disposition, which is involuntary in us, and which renders it difficult for us to obey the law, is not (as Kant's objection presupposes) imputed to us as sin; but the guilt with which we are charged lies in this, that we do not surmount the difficulties which arise from it (§56).

[1 The version of this text given in the translation of Augusti and De Wette, harmonizes perfectly with the old and orthodox doctrine:

"Sieh! in Schuld bin ich geboren,

"Und in Sünd' empfing mich meine Mutter." S.]

2 Vom radicalen Bösen in der menschlichen natur, S. 37. 3 Kantii Phil. Annot. p. 8.

X. 1 Cor. 15:48, as the earthly, such are the earthly. Gen. 5: 3, Adam begat children in his own likeness ]בְּדְמוּתוֹ

[בְצַלְמוֹ

XI. The propagation of this depravity is the natural result of a law of our nature, which is in itself salutary (Gen. 1: 28). And the unhappy effects of this law, on the descendents of Adam, can no more be charged on the Author of nature, than that misery can, which, in the course of the operation of these laws, is entailed on the innocent children of such parents as have by their wicked life contracted a hereditary disease.1

XII. In no other way than by the natural inheritance of the sinful propensities of parents by the children, could the necessity of dying have been extended to all men on account of the individual act of transgression by Adam (Rom. 5: 15-17). For it was from this one sin, that the sinful disposition of Adam proceeded; and through him this disposition, which involves the necessity of death, was propagated over the whole human family. This is the only interpretation which accords with the declaration of Paul (Rom. 5: 12—19), that ἁμαρτια [depravity], and through ἁμαρτια, death, were entailed on the whole human family. Moreover, the doctrine of the propagation of depravity by natural generation from Adam, is closely connected with the important doctrine of the gracious provision of God for the redemption of the human family, and in various points of view, tends to throw much light upon this subject.3

2

Jost is disposed almost totally to reject the connexion between the propositions δι' ένος ανθρωπου ἡ ἁμαρτια, και δια της ἁμαρτιας ὁ θανατος, i. e. the connexion between the mortality of mankind and the first sin of Adam, through the instrumental

ity of universal ἁμαρτια, “sin or depravity," which Paul maintains. He supposes that the object of the apostle in this passage was, to meet the objection which might possibly be urged, that if mankind had actually been reconciled to God through Christ, they would necessarily be delivered from death, it being a punishment of sin; and to prove that death cannot properly be regarded as a punishment, at least not in every instance; and that men might certainly be mortal without being deserving of punishment. The prominent idea which he supposes to be contained in the 12th and subsequent verses, he expresses thus : "Adam sinned the punishment of his sin was death, and this became, in some sense, a general punishment which was inflicted on all men, and which could not well be dispensed with, because God had found it necessary to connect it with Adam's sin."

XIII. See the work on the Object of the death of Christ, p. 653 &c. Note t. and De Maree sup. cit. p. 324-329.

XIV. 2 Cor. 5:21, he that knew not sin. 1 John 3: 5, there is no sin in him. 1 Pet. 3: 18, Christ suffered the just for the unjust. Here Christ, as the only just person, is distinguished from those for whom he suffered, i. e. from all mankind (§66), they being in comparison with him declared not as just, but unjust. 1 Pet. 1: 19, αμνου αμωμου και ασπιλου Χριστου Christ, the lamb, without blemish and without spot. Heb. 7: 26, όσιος, ακακος, αμιαντος, κεχωρισμένος απο των ἁμαρτωλων holy, innocent, undefiled, and separated from sinners.

XV. Luke 1:34 &c. compare Matth. 1: 16-20, 25. See § 75.

XVI. In the Dissertation on the Object of the death of Christ, it is maintained that the universality of depravity results from the circumstance that all are descended ultimately from one (father) by whom they are begotten [Adam]; and that therefore this depravity is always traced to Adam, and not to Eve.

§ 56.

More particular view of this innate depravity.

This natural depravity (1) consists in inordinate and violent propensities to the objects and pleasures of sense;1 propensities which "war" against reason and conscience (2), against that which accords with the law of God and with propriety, Rom. 7: 16, 22, 25. It therefore consists in a preponderance of the propensities of our nature for the objects and pleasures of sense, which may indeed, for a while, remain unobserved; but will immediately manifest itself (3), so soon as our reason and ability to discriminate between right and wrong, begin to be unfolded. This preponderance is evinced by so great an aversion (4) to the law of God (5), that we are enticed by the law itself to resist its injunctions, and are, as it were, challenged to direct our attention and exert our agency in reference to objects, of which we should not have thought, had it not been for the intervention of the law (6); in short, it discovers itself by a decided (7) inclination (8) to that which is sinful and forbidden (9). We must indeed first voluntarily submit (10) ourselves to the dominion of these inordinate propen

[1 There is no word in the English language which corresponds exactly to sinnlich, and Sinnlichkeit in the German. Sensual has too much of the idea of carnal, and sensation too little. "Sense,” as distinguished from reason, in the phrase "pleasures of sense, " comes nearest to it; but the German word more distinctly includes the idea that they are of an inferior, sinful nature. S.]