without their fault (this illustration resembles that used by Roman Catholic writers.

3 Joshua Placæus, Theses theologica de statu hom. lapsi ante gratiam. 1640, and Disput. de imputatione primi peccati Adami. Salmur 1655. He only admitted an indirect imputation of the sin of Adam, but not a direct one; the opposite view, was defended in the Formula Consensus.

4 See Reuchlin, Port-Royal, p. 342 ss. Appendix vii. p. 753 ss.

In connection with their rigid views concerning the nature and origin of sin, the Protestants could not but reject the notion of the immaculate conception of the Virgin; that they for some time retained the predicates: pura et intemerata virgo (Conf. Bas. I.), and others, does not by any means prove that they admitted the doctrine itself; comp. Declaratio Thoruniens. (quoted by Augusti, p. 415 and 416): Omnes homines, solo Christo excepto, in peccato originali concepti et nati sunt, etiam ipsa sanctissima Virgo Maria.-But the doctrine in question continued to meet with opposition on the part of Roman Catholic writers themselves, and neither the Council of Trent, nor Bellarmin, nor some of the later popes, (e. g. Gregory XV. and Alexander VII.) ventured to determine the point at issue. Comp. Winer p. 57. note 2. Augusti, Archæologie III. p. 100.

§ 247.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN, IN THEORY AS WELL AS IN PRACTICE.

The anthropology of the Protestant Church was more fully developed both by theologians of a practical tendency, and the adherents of the schools. In accordance with the spirit of earlier scholasticism, Lutherans and Calvinists alike entered into inquiries respecting the creation of man,1 the propagation of the human race, (Creationism and Traducianism),2 the nature of the fall, of original sin, and of actual sin.5 The con

viction of sin and moral inability, as well as the consciousness of the freedom of the will, continued to manifest themselves in practical life, though, in reference to the former, it may be said that the definitions

of the schools, and the bigoted zeal which Calov displayed in his controversy with Calixt and his followers, rendered it a dead letter. On the contrary, the Pietists again pointed out the importance of the practical bearing of the doctrine concerning the corruption of mankind, and insisted at the same time upon the necessity of a total change of the heart." This was also the case with the Jansenists in the Roman Catholic Church, while the principles of Jesuitism were favourable to a less genuine morality.9

1 The assertion that there had been human beings prior to the creation of Adam (Preadamites), gave rise to a short controversy in the Reformed Church. Isaac Peyrerius (de la Peyrère), who had become a convert to Romanism, and died A. D. 1676, as one of the priests of the oratory, published 1655, a work entitled: de Præadamitis. Comp. Bayle Dictionaire iii. p. 637. 38. His notion was opposed by Calov iii. p. 1049, who called it "monstrosa opinio," Quenstedt i. p. 733 ss. and Hollaz. p. 406.-According to the common definition of man in works on systematic theology, he is nothing but an animal rationale. As regards the principle of division, most writers adopted the dichotomistic principle, according to which man consists of body and soul. Thus Hollaz says, P. i. c. 5. qu. 6. (p. 410): Homo constat e duabus partibus, anima rationali et corpore organico; other definitions are given by Hase, Hutterus redivivus, p. 192.— John Gerhard thought that man was an image of the Trinity; see Loci theol. Tom. iv. loc. ix. § 6. On God's breathing the breath of life into man's nostrils, comp. ibid. § 12. (quoted by De Wette Dogmatik, p. 89): Non ex intimo ore suæ essentiæ spirat Deus animam hominis, sicut Spiritum S. ab omni æternitate intra divinam essentiam Pater cum Filio spirat, sed animam in tempore extra suam essentiam creatam homini inspiravit.

2 Gerhard very properly left it to philosophers (ix. 8. § 118.) to define the modus propagationis; but he taught himself § 116 ......animas eorum, qui ex Adamo et Eva progeniti fuissent, non creatas, neque etiam generatas, sed propagatas fuisse; similar views were entertained by Calov iii. 1081. and Hollaz i. 5.

qu. 9. (p. 414. 15.): Anima humana hodie non immediate creatur, sed mediante semine fœcundo a parentibus generatur et in liberos traducitur......Non generatur anima ex traduce, sine semine fœcundo, tamquam principio materiali, sed per traducem, seu mediante semine prolifico, tamquam vehiculo propagatur.On the contrary, Bellarmin, Calvin, and the theologians of the Reformed Church in general, advocated the theory of Creatianism, which they thought perfectly reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin. Calvin, indeed, did not attach so much importance to such definitions as the earlier scholastics (Instit. ii. 1. 7.): neque ad ejus rei intelligentiam necessaria est anxia disputatio, quæ veteres non parum torsit, but he continued as follows: Neque in substantia carnis aut animæ causam habet contagio: sed quia a Deo ita fuit ordinatum. Bucan. p. 92: Quod totum genus humanum ab Adamo corruptum est, non tam ex genitura provenit......quam ex justa Dei vindicta. Other passages are quoted by De Wette, Dogmatik p. 89. Among the Lutheran theologians it was Calixt who defended Creatianism in his treatise de animæ creatione; see De Wette 1. c.

3 The fall of our first parents was called peccatum originans in distinction from original sin (peccatum originale, originatum.) The causa externa, prima et principalis, was Satan, the causa instrumentalis was the serpent, by which we are to understand a real serpent possessed with the devil. Gerhard loc. x. § 8. p. 295. endeavoured to reconcile the too literal interpretation of Josephus (Antiq. 3. 1.) with the allegorizing exposition of Philo (de mundi opif. f. 46.) by saying: Nos nec nudum, nec mere allegoricum, sed diabolo obsessum ac stipatum serpentem hic discribi statuimus. (He proves this at some length from the twofold nature of the serpent, and the curse pronounced upon the devil no less than upon the serpent.) Compare De Wette p. 94, and Hase, Hutterus redivivus p. 202, where passages are quoted from other writers. Calvinistic theologians indulged in similar speculations. This was the case e. g. with Heidegger x. 10. In ch. 14. he describes the sodía tentationis satanicæ, and then proceeds (in the subsequent chapters, especially ch. 18.) to examine the guilt of man. Adam's fall was not particularis, but generalis... Non simplex, sed concatenatum peccatum fuit, et universæ legis amoris Dei et proximi violationem involvit. He transgressed the

laws both of the first and the second table. His guilt was considerably increased, partly because, having received so many blessings from the hand of God, he could have no pretext for sinning, partly because the command was in itself easily to be complied with. Other circumstances also, such as time and place (i. e. his recent creation and his abode in paradise), added to his guilt, as well as his high office in his capacity as the father of the human race. Accedit, quod (peccatum Ada) radix fuit omnium peccatorum et velut equus Trojanus, ex cujus utero et iliis innumera peccata omniumque malorum Ilias prodierunt, ut gravissimum hoc peccatum et apostasiam a Deo vivente fuisse, dubitari nullo modo possit.—In ch. 19. he examines (after the example of the scholastics) the question, whether Adam had the greater guilt, or Eve? which he thus decides: Nobis Scriptura utcunque innuere videtur, gravius peccasse Adamum, cum non tam Evæ, quam Adami peccatum accuset (Rom. v. 12. 1 Cor. xv. 22.) In ch. 20. he treats of the share which God had in the fall: Nec Deus spectator otiosus fuit. Nam ante peccatum tum lege illud vetuit, tum comminatione ab eo hominem deterruit. In peccato et explorationis causa hominem sibi reliquit, et patrato jam ab Eva peccato, oculos ejusdem ad agnoscendam nuditatem prius non aperuit, quam Adam etiam peccasset. Post illud immediate judicium in peccatores exercuit...et in remedium peccati Christum προκεχειροτονημένον revelavit. Nevertheless he modestly adds: In modo, quem divina providentia circa peccatum adhibuit explicando cogitationes et linguæ nostræ ita frænandæ sunt, ut cogitemus semper Deum in cœlo esse, nos in terra, eum fabricatorem esse, nos ejus plasma. Cumque intelligere, quomodo creati simus, non valeamus, multo equidem minus intelligere possumus, quomodo facti ad imaginem Dei mutari potuerimus, ut tamen non independenter homo egerit, et Deus malum non fecerit. Comp. Gerhard § 14 ss.-§ 25: Maneat ergo firmum fixum, Deum non decrevisse nec voluisse istum protoplastorum lapsum, nec impulisse eos ad peccatum, nec eo delectatum fuisse, etc.

4 Gerhard Loci x. c. 3 ss. § 51: Per hominem victum tota natura corrupta est et quasi fermentata peccato.-§ 52: Peccatum illud (Adami) non est modis omnibus a nobis alienum, quia Adam non ut privatus homo, sed ut caput totius humani generis peccavit, utque ut natura humana per ipsum communicata fit

propria cuique personæ ex ipso genitæ, sic et naturæ corruptio per propagationem communicatur. Ac proinde quemadmodum tribus Levitica inclusa lumbis Abrahæ docimas obtulisse Melchisedecho dicitur (Hebr. vii. 9.) ita et nos, qui in lumbis Adæ peccantis delituimus, in et cum ipso non modo corrupti, sed et rei iræ Dei facti sumus. His views are more fully developed c. 5. -According to Heidegger x. 44 ss. not only the potentiæ naturales (superiores: mens et voluntas; inferiores: sensitiva et vegetativa) are subject to corruption, but also the qualitates; conscience itself has suffered from the consequences of sin, nor are the bodily organs exempt from the general corruption (Matt. v. 29, 30.) Concerning the nature of original sin it is said c. 50: Neque peccatum originale merus reatus peccati alieni, neque concupiscentia sola proprie, neque nuda justitiæ carentia est. Sed late acceptum peccati alieni imputatione, et labe omnibus facultatibus inhærente, easque tum a bono avertente, tum ad malum convertente, quam utramque distinctus reatus sequitur; stricte vero pro solo eo quod nascentibus seu orientibus inest, labe ea facultatibus insita, quam etiam proprius reatus sequitur, constat. Cum enim peccatum pertineat ad facultates hominis, ab iis non est discendum. Itaque cum peccatum originis non pertineat ad opera, quæ a facultatibus illis procedunt, necesse est in ipsis illis, ceu spiritualis quædam lepra hæreat.

5 A distinction was made between peccatum originale (habituale) and actuale, and actual sins were further divided into peccata voluntaria et involuntaria, peccata commissionis et omissionis, peccata interiora et exteriora, or peccata cordis, oris et operis, etc. Most writers agreed in defining sin as illegalitas seu difformitas a lege divina. Comp. Gerhard Loci Tom. v. ab initio. Heidegger c. 52 ss. and other passages quoted by De Wette 1. c.

6 The views of Calixt, which he held at an early period of his life, were laid down in a collected form in his Dissertat. de peccato (written A. D. 1611); see G. Calixtii de præcipuis christianæ religionis capitibus Disputationes xv. ed. a F. U. Calixto Helmst. 1658. 4. Disput. v. In combating Traducianism (comp. note 2.) he made the following assertions: Thes. 33.: Quare peccatum originis in nobis non est ipsa culpa a parentibus commissa, et quia culpa non est, nec est reatus, quum aperte quoque scriptum