025. CHAPTER 10 - THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN- PENALTY OF THE LAW CONSIDERED.

CHAPTER 10 - THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN- PENALTY OF THE LAW CONSIDERED.

HAVING contemplated, in the preceding chapter, the circumstances connected with the history of the fall of man, we come now to consider its effects. This is one of the most important subjects in theology. It presents the basis on which is founded the whole remedial scheme of the gospel; for if the lapsed state of man be denied, his redemption must be superfluous. An erroneous view of the effects of the Fall, from the very nature of the subject, would be likely to extend itself throughout the whole gospel system. Hence, the principal heresies with which the Church in all ages has been infested, have originated in improper views upon this subject. In divinity, as in all science, to start right is of vast importance; therefore peculiar care should be exercised in endeavoring to ascertain correctly the consequences of the first apostasy of man, from which evidently springs the necessity of redemption. In approaching this important subject, that which demands our investigation is, I.The nature of the penalty attached to the Adamic law.

Upon this subject a great diversity of opinion has existed. The first, and perhaps the most defective theory of all that we shall notice, is that which has been attributed to Pelagius, a Briton, who flourished about the commencement of the fifth century. The same opinion was adopted by Socinus of the sixteenth century; and, with little variation, is held by Socinians generally of the present day.

According to this theory, death, the penalty of the law, is not to be understood, in the full and proper sense, as implying either death temporal, spiritual, or eternal; but is rather to be understood figuratively, as implying a state of exposure to the divine displeasure, expulsion from paradise, and a subjection to ills and inconveniences such as should make the transgressor feel the evil of his sin, and might serve as a disciplinary correction, to prevent a subsequent departure from duty: but that the body of Adam, being created naturally mortal, would have died, whether he had sinned or not; and that his soul did not lose the divine image and favor, though it became to some extent injured in its faculties. A second opinion is, that the death affixed as the penalty of the law extended to both soul and body, and implied complete annihilation. A third theory is, that the death threatened related exclusively to the body, and, consequently, that the soul is just as pure, until defiled by actual transgression, as the soul of Adam in paradise. This was the notion of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich. A fourth view of the subject is, that the threatened penalty implied spiritual death only, or the loss of the divine image from the soul; and that the death of the body is only an after consequence, resulting not directly from sin but from a merciful interposition, by which man was denied access to the tree of life. That none of these views presents the true scriptural account of this subject, we hope to render apparent by the establishment of the following proposition, viz., that the death threatened as the penalty of the Adamic law included death temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

1.Our first argument upon this subject is founded upon the scriptural account containing the record of the original threatening, and of the curse subsequently denounced. The language of the penalty is, “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” The language of the curse denounced upon Adam, after his transgression, is this: “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field: in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” The language here quoted, in which the curse is denounced upon Adam immediately subsequent to the Fall, must be understood, to some extent at least, as a comment upon the threatened penalty. This we may clearly infer from the preface to the curse, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,” etc. Here we are plainly taught that the curse denounced is a direct consequence of the transgression; and if so, it must be embraced in the penalty; for nothing but the penalty can result directly and necessarily from the transgression. To suppose that the entire malediction, as here specified, was not embraced in the previous threatening, would be to charge the Almighty with unnecessary severity, for, in strict justice, nothing could have been required more than the execution of the penalty; nor could the transgression of the law be thus directly specified, as the cause of this curse, upon any supposition, but that the previously declared penalty demanded it. We may not only infer that this entire malediction was embraced in the penalty, but also that, so far as the language extends, it is a comment upon the penalty itself. If the above be admitted as true, we have here a positive proof that the sorrows and afflictions of life, together with the final dissolution of the body, were embraced in the penalty. It is here declared that the very earth is cursed for the sake of man, to whom it had been given for an inheritance; that he shall lead a life of toil and sorrow, and that “to dust shall he return;” and all this because of his sin. Most evidently, then must the death of the body have been included in the penalty. But again, we find here, also, very conclusive proof, of an indirect and inferential kind, that spiritual death is also included. By this death is understood the loss of the divine image and favor. Physical evil, according to the whole tenor of the Scriptures and the nature of the divine government, is understood to be the result of moral evil. Hence, to suppose that man is involved in the dreadful miseries here denounced, and yet not the subject of such a moral defection as to deprive him of the immaculate image and favor of God, is an absurdity which, we think, can only be adopted by persons of easy faith.

2. Our next proof that the original penalty embraced death, corporeal, spiritual, and eternal, is founded upon the nature of man to whom the law was given. The plain, common-sense interpretation of Scripture, where there is nothing in the context to oppose it, is always the best. Let any honest inquirer after truth, who has no favorite theory to sustain, take up his Bible, and read, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” and endeavor to learn, from the nature of the person addressed, the character of the death specified, and what must be his conclusion? The law was here given, not to the body of man, previously to its union with the soul, but to man in his compound character, after his two natures had been united, so as to constitute but one person; therefore the penalty is not denounced against the body alone, but against man in his entire nature. It was not said, “In the day thou eatest thereof” thy body “shall die,” nor thy soul “shall die;” but “thou”-meaning Adam, a compound being, consisting of soul and body-”thou,” in thy entire nature, “shalt die.”

Again, if either the soul or body had been entirely alone in the offense there might be more plausibility in the supposition that it would be alone in the penalty; but there was a sin of the soul resulting in a bodily act of transgression; therefore the natural inference is, that as both partook of the offense, both must be involved in the penalty. Once more: as eternal death is only a perpetuity of the sentence of death denounced against man, it would follow as a natural consequence that the death must be eternal unless removed; but the penalty made no provision for its own destruction-consequently it must have included eternal death. Thus have we seen that, from the very nature of man to whom the law was given, we may reasonably infer that the penalty denounced against him was death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

3. In the next place, we appeal to the express declaration of the word of God, in various passages, in confirmation of the view we have taken of the import of the penalty under consideration. To an unprejudiced mind, one would think that the very phraseology of the penalty itself were enough.

Upon this subject we have the following forcible remarks from Dr. John Dick, in his Lectures: “It may be sufficient, in the present case, to repeat the words of God to Adam, without quoting other passages in confirmation of their meaning: ‘In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Can any thing be plainer than that if he did not eat he should not die? Can we suppose that God threatened, as a consequence of transgression, what would take place in the course of nature? that Adam was deterred from disobedience by the annunciation of an event which would befall him, although he performed his duty? If men will make themselves ridiculous by venting opinions stamped with folly and absurdity, let them beware of exposing their Maker to contempt.”

Upon the same subject, Mr. Watson, in his Institutes, uses the following pertinent observations: “The death threatened to Adam we conclude, therefore, to have extended to the soul of man as well as to his body, though not in the sense of annihilation; but for the confirmation of this, it is necessary to refer more particularly to the language of Scripture, which is its own best interpreter, and it will be seen that the opinion of those divines who include in the penalty attached to the first offense the very ‘fullness of death,’ as it has been justly termed-death, bodily, spiritual, and eternal- is not to be puffed away by sarcasm, but stands firm on inspired testimony.”

If, as we have seen, death is the penalty of the law given to Adam, is it not manifest that we exercise a freedom with the word of God for which we have no license, if we restrict the import of death within narrower limits than are assigned to it in the Scriptures themselves? In Romans 6:23, St. Paul declares, “For the wages of sin is death.” This is presented as a broad principle of truth-a Scripture axiom of universal application. Here is no particular kind of death specified, but the term death is used in a general and unlimited sense; then, wherever we find death in any shape or form, or of any kind, we here have the inspired testimony that it is the “wages of sin.” We have only then to turn to the Holy Oracles still farther, and inquire in what sense the term death is there used; and we have the plainest testimony that in the same sense it is “the wages of sin;” or, in other words, results from sin as its penalty. The dissolution of the body is so frequently spoken of as death, that quotations would perhaps be superfluous. We, however, present one-1 Corinthians 15:22 : “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Here the apostle is discoursing especially on the subject of the dissolution of the body, and its resurrection, and uses the term death, and represents it as taking place “in Adam,” which, if it does not imply that death resulted penally from the first transgression, can have no intelligible meaning whatever. The fifth chapter to the Romans furnishes an ample comment on the penalty of the Adamic law. We find there these words: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” Here we may plant ourselves on the testimony of the apostle, and ask, Can language be more specific? can proof be more positive? Two points are here established beyond the possibility of dispute: first, that death has directly resulted from the transgression of Adam; second, that this death is opposed to the life which is bestowed: through Christ. Christ is the fountain of life in the same sense in which Adam is the source of death. We have, therefore, only to ask in what sense is Christ the source of life. Is he not the source of life, bodily, spiritual, and eternal? None can deny it without giving the lie to the apostle. And if so, it is equally clear that death in all these senses is the result, the penal result, of Adam’s sin. But still it may be inquired, Have we scriptural authority for applying the term death to the loss of the divine image from the soul, and the eternal separation of both soul and body from God? In Ephesians 2:1, we read: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” Here is only one of the many places in which spiritual death in spoken of. This is a moral destitution, or a separation of the soul from the life and love of God; and it is here spoken of as opposed to the quickening influence of Christ. We saw, in the fifth chapter to the Romans, that the death counteracted by Christ was the result of Adam’s sin; hence it will follow that the spiritual death here referred to was included in the penalty under consideration. In reference to eternal death, Mr. Watson makes the following remarks: “But the highest sense of the term ‘death,’ in Scripture, is the punishment of the soul in a future state, both by a loss of happiness and separation from God, and also by a positive infliction of divine wrath. Now, this is stated not as peculiar to any dispensation of religion, but as common to all-as the penalty of the transgression of the law of God in every degree.

‘Sin is the transgression of the law;’ this is its definition. ‘The wages of sin is death;’ this is its penalty. Here we have no mention made of any particular sin, as rendering the transgressor liable to this penalty, nor of any particular circumstance under which sin may be committed, as calling forth that fatal expression of the divine displeasure; but of sin itself generally-of transgression of the divine law in every form and degree, it is affirmed ‘The wages of sin is death.’ This is, therefore, to be considered as an axiom in the jurisprudence of Heaven. ‘Sin,’ says St. James, with like absolute and unqualified manner, ‘when it is finished, bringeth forth death;’ nor have we the least intimation given in Scripture that any sin whatever is exempted from this penalty, or that some sins are punished in this life only, and others in the life to come. The degree of punishment will be varied by the offense; but death is the penalty attached to all sin, unless it is averted by pardon, which itself supposes that in the law the penalty has been incurred. What was there then in the case of Adam to take him out of this rule? His act was a transgression of the law, and therefore sin; as sin, its wages was ‘death,’ which in Scripture, we have seen; means, in its highest sense, future punishment.”

According, therefore, to the testimony of Scripture, we conclude that the penalty of the Adamic law was death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. To suppose that this is to be understood in the sense of annihilation, would be contrary to the Scriptures, as well as every testimony in reference to death in any sense of the term. Death never means annihilation. We know not that any created substance ever has been, or ever will be, annihilated. The death of the body is only a separation of the soul from it, resulting in a decomposition of its substance; but not a particle of matter is annihilated. Therefore, to speak of eternal death as the annihilation of soul and body, is a bare assumption, without the least shadow of testimony, either from reason, observation, or Scripture, to sustain it.

II. We examine, in the second place, the peculiar relation sustained by Adam to his posterity in the transaction of the Fall. The different opinions entertained on this subject may be reduced to three.

1. Pelagians and Socinians maintain that Adam acted for himself alone, and that his posterity have sustained no injury by his fall, either in their physical or moral constitution; but that they are born as holy as he was in paradise, and that the death of the body would have been inevitable, even if Adam had not sinned.

2. Another theory, which has had its advocates, is, that Adam was a kind of natural representative of his posterity; so that the effects of his fall, to some extent, are visited upon his posterity, not as a penal infliction for guilt attributed to them, but as a natural consequence, in the same sense in which children are compelled to suffer poverty or disgrace, by the profligacy or crimes of their immediate parent, without involving them, in any sense, in the guilt on account of which they suffer. This was the opinion of Dr. Whitby and several divines of the Established Church of England, who, to say the least, leaned too much toward Pelagianism.

3. A third, and, as we believe, the most rational and scriptural view of the subject is, that Adam, in the transaction of the fall, was the federal head and proper legal representative of his posterity, insomuch that they fell in him as truly, in the view of the law, as he fell himself; and that the consequences of the first sin are visited upon them, as a penal infliction, for the guilt of Adam imputed to them. That such was the relation of Adam to his posterity, we think can be satisfactorily shown. The federative character of Adam is so clearly implied in the first blessing pronounced upon man, that it would be exceedingly difficult, without its admission, to place upon the passage a consistent interpretation.

Genesis 1:28 : “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Here, observe, the command is, to “replenish the earth,” and to “have dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Now, if all this cannot be applied to the original pair, but must embrace their posterity, then it will follow that, as their posterity are not here named, they were included in Adam, their legal head and representative, through whom this blessing was pronounced upon them as really as it was upon Adam himself. In 1 Corinthians 15:45, we read: “The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Here we see Christ and Adam so plainly contrasted that the very name Adam is given also to Christ. If this is not designed to teach us that Adam, like Christ, was a public character, what can the language import? The apostle, in this chapter, was contrasting death and its attendant evils, which came by Adam, with life and its attendant blessings, which came by Christ. In accordance with which, in the 22d verse, we read: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Now, if Christ was a federal representative through whom the blessing of life is communicated, even so was Adam a federal head through whom death is communicated. In the fifth chapter to the Romans, the apostle considers the subject at large, and contrasts the evils entailed upon his posterity by Adam with the benefits they derive from Christ. From the apostle’s argument, it is clear that Adam was as much a public representative in the transgression as Christ was in the righteousness of the atonement. Unless we admit that Adam was the federal head of mankind, how can they be constituted sinners by his offense? Death, being “the wages of sin,” could not be inflicted on all mankind unless they had sinned, either personally, or by their representative. But if we deny that Adam was the representative of his posterity in the eye of the law, the law could never treat them as sinners. But we see death passing “upon all,” as the apostle says, “for that all have sinned.” Here, observe, the argument is that all upon whom death passes have sinned; but death passes upon many (infants) who have not sinned personally, or “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression;” then they must have sinned in Adam, and if so, he must have been, in the eye of the law, their federal head.

It has already been proved that death is the penalty of the law, or, in other words, “the wages of sin.” If so, to suppose that death merely results indirectly upon the posterity of Adam as a natural consequence, and not as a direct penalty, must be an erroneous view of the subject, unsustained by reason or Scripture. Indeed, to deny that Adam in the first transgression was a public representative of his race, would involve us at once in a train of inextricable difficulties. How could we reconcile it with the justice of God, that all mankind should be involved with Adam in the curse, unless they were represented by him in the transgression? Will the justice of God punish the perfectly innocent? Can the penalty of a holy law fall with all its weight upon those who, in no sense of the word, are viewed in the light of transgressors?

We think it must be obvious, from what has been said, that the only scriptural and consistent view of the subject is, to consider Adam in his state of trial as the federal head of all mankind. In him they sinned; in him they fell; and with him they suffer the penalty of a violated law. All difficulty which this arrangement might present, in view of the mercy of God, vanishes as the remedial scheme opens to view.