tionist postulates, or a specific one, as the traducianist contends.

In some places Edwards, however, suggests that there may be unity of substance between Adam and his posterity. "From these things," he says (Original Sin, Works, II. 487), "it will clearly follow that identity of consciousness depends wholly on a law of nature, and so on the sovereign will and agency of God; and therefore, that personal identity, and so the derivation of the pollution and guilt of past sins in the same person, depends on an arbitrary divine constitution; and this, even though we should allow the same consciousness not to be the only thing which constitutes oneness of person, but should, beside that, suppose sameness of substance requisite. For even this oneness of created substance, existing at different times, is merely dependent identity-dependent on the pleasure and sovereign constitution of him who worketh all in all."

The following are the principal objections urged against the theory of Traducianism:

1. It is said that it conflicts with the doctrine of Christ's sinlessness. It does not, if the doctrine of the miraculous conception is held. The Scriptures teach that the human nature of our Lord was perfectly sanctified, in and by his conception by the Holy Ghost. Sanctification implies that the nature needed sanctification. Had Christ been born of Mary's substance in the ordinary manner, he would have been a sinful man. His humanity prior to conception was an undividualized part of the common human nature. Ile was the "seed of the woman," the "seed of David." As such simply, his human nature was like that of Mary and of David, fallen and sinful. It is denominated "sinful flesh," in Rom. 8: 3. It required perfect sanctification before it could be assumed into union with the second trinitarian person, and it obtained it through the miraculous conception. Says Pearson (Creed, Art. III.), "the original and total sanctification of the human nature was first VOL. II.-6

necessary, to fit it for the personal union with the Word, who out of his infinite love humbled himself to become flesh, and at the same time out of his infinite purity could not defile himself by becoming sinful flesh. The human nature was formed by the Spirit, and in its formation sanctified, and in its sanctification united to the Word." See Christology, pp. 296-305; Shedd: Romans, 8:3.

Theologians have confined their attention mainly to the sanctification of Christ's human nature, saying little about its justification. But a complete Christology must include the latter as well as the former. Any nature that requires sanctification requires justification; because sin is guilt as well as pollution. The Logos could not unite with a human nature taken from the Virgin Mary, and transmitted from Adam, unless it had previously been delivered from both the condemnation and the corruption of sin. The idea of redemption, also, includes both justification and sanctification; and it is conceded that that portion of human nature which the Logos assumed into union with himself was redeemed. His own humanity was the "first fruits" of his redemptive work. "Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's," 1 Cor. 15:23. Consequently, the doctrine is not fully constructed, unless this side of it is presented.

So far, then, as the guilt of Adam's sin rested upon that unindividualized portion of the common fallen nature of Adam assumed by the Logos, it was expiated by the one sacrifice on Calvary. The human nature of Christ was prepared for the personal union with the Logos, by being justified, as well as sanctified. "God was manifested in the flesh, was justified (edikaiwdn) by (év) the Spirit," 1 Tim. 3:16. Here, the "flesh" denotes the entire humanity, psychical and physical, and it was "justified." The justification in this instance, like that of the Old Testament believers, was proleptical, in view of the future atoning death of Christ.'

1 That the antithesis, here, between oάpè̟ and wveúμa, is the same as in 1 Pet. 3:18, and Rom. 1:3, 4: namely, between the humanity and the divinity in

The gracious redemption of the humanity which the Logos assumed into union with himself, is a familiar point in the patristic Christology. Augustine (Enchiridion, xxxvi.) teaches it as follows: "Wherefore was this unheard-of glory of being united with deity conferred on human nature -a glory which, as there was no antecedent merit, was of course wholly of grace-except that here those who have looked at the matter soberly and honestly might behold a clear manifestation of the power of God's free grace, and might understand that they are justified from their sins by the same grace which made the man Christ Jesus free from the possibility of sin?" To the same effect, Athanasius (Contra Arianos, II. lxi.) says that Christ's human nature was "first saved and redeemed (eowdy kaì ýλevdeρwIn), and so became the means of our salvation and redemption."

2. It is objected that traducianism implies division of substance, and that all division implies extended material substance. Not necessarily. When it is said that that which is divisible is material, divisibility by man is meant. It is the separation of something that is visible, extended, and ponderable, by means of material instruments. But there is another kind of divisibility that is effected by the Creator, by means of a law of propagation established for this purpose. God can divide and distribute a primary substance that is not visible, extended, and ponderable, and yet is real, by a method wholly different from that by which a man divides a piece of clay into two portions. There is an example of this even in the propagation of the body. Here, individual physical life is derived from specific physical life. But this is division of life. Imponderable physi

Christ's person, is plain from the context. If this be so, the dative is instrumental in both instances; denoting the agency by which the action of the verb is brought about. "God was manifested by the humanity, and justified by the Divinity." The "justification" of the human nature was through the atonement made by the Divine nature incarnate. This view of the antithesis between σáp and reúμa was taken generally by the older commentators. Of modern exegetes, it is adopted by Wiesinger.

cal substance is separated from imponderable physical substance. An individual body is not animated by the total physical life of the species, but by a derived part of it. That invisible principle which constitutes the reality and identity of the individual human body (p. 65 sq.) is abscided, invisibly, and mysteriously, from the specific physical nature of man.' But this process is wholly different from the division of extended and visible substance by human modes. Animal life in its last analysis is as invisible as psychical life, and is as little capable of human divisibility.

Accordingly, the advocates of traducianism distinguish between physical and psychical propagation. Maresius, a Reformed theologian of high authority, refers to this distinction in the following terms: "Whatever be the origin of the soul, these three things are to be held as fixed and certain First, that the soul is immortal; second, that God is not the author of sin; third, that we are born from Adam corrupt and depraved. It would not be more difficult to harmonize the propagation of the soul with its immateriality and immortality, than to harmonize the creation of each individual soul with the propagation of original sin. Only it must be remembered that the propagation in this instance is not a coarse (crassam) material propagation from animal substance, but a subtile spiritual derivation from a mental essence similar to that of the light of one candle propagating itself to another." Theologia Elenctica, Controversia XI. Heppe (Reformirte Dogmatik, XI.) quotes the testimony of Riissen; "Communior est sententia eorum, qui volunt animam esse ex traduce; i.e., animam traduci ex anima, non per decisionem aut partitionem animae paternae, sed modo quodam spirituali, ut lumen accenditur de lumine. Nos autem statuimus, animas omnes immediate a deo creari, et creando infundi."

But if there may be division and derivation of invisible

1 A species or specific nature is divisible, but an individual is not-as the etymology (in-dividuus) implies.

substance, in the case of the body, there may be in the case of the soul. It is the invisibility and imponderability that constitutes the difficulty, and if this is no bar to propagation in respect to the physical part of man, it is not in respect to the psychical part. When God by means of his own law of propagation derives an individual soul from a specific psychical nature, he does not sever and separate substance in any material manner. The words of our Lord may be used by way of accommodation here: "That which is born of the spirit is spirit." Psychical propagation yields a psychical product. When God causes an individual soul to be conceived and born simultaneously with the conception and birth of an individual body, that entity which he thus derives out of the psychical side of the specific human nature is really and truly mind, not matter. "Deus est qui nos personat," says Augustine. God is the author of our personality. If he can create an entity which at the very first instant of its existence is a spiritual and self-determined substance, then certainly he can propagate an entity that is a spiritual and self-determined substance. The propagation of the soul involves no greater difficulty than its creation. If creation may be associated with both spirit and matter, without materializing the former, so may propagation. We do not argue that if spirit is created, it must be material because matter is created. And neither should we argue that if spirit is propagated, it must be material because matter is propagated. God creates matter as matter, and mind as mind. And he propagates matter as matter, and mind as mind. We continually speak of the "growth of the soul," "the development of the mind." These are primarily physical terms, but we apply them literally to a spiritual substance, not supposing that we thereby materialize it. Why may we not, then, speak of the "propagation" or "derivation" of a soul without thereby materializing it?

If the distinction between creation and propagation is