Adam. He maintains the

of the individual is not a

stance. ut seerval from a smo pijam zame that was amazed a the sixth day. In the matice Tstence in Adam. e butane Berumur existence, win to the individprincipal difficulty a te proem, and in contening to reality as to the bogy, the creationist carries a common aursen witi de traducianist. For it is as diffiCar & chuk df an invite existence of the human body in Adamm, 26 tao tank of an invisible existence of the human 1. In reality, it is even more difficult; because by individual man, as we now know it, is visi e and tange, while a soul is not. And an invisible and mange existence Adam is more conceivable than

a The and tangible.

Ja Lacing either traducianism or creationism, it is im
Ja define the idea of "substance." The term, in
tis rocnection, does not imply either extension or figure.
It is taken in its etymological and metaphysical

demure entity which stands under phenomena, and is
the base for them. As in theology, the Divine "substance"
or at is mextended and formless, yet a real entity,
is addicpongy, the human "substance" or nature is with

.t

out extension and figure, yet is a certain amount of real being with definite and distinguishable properties. Shedd: Theological Essays, 135-137.

So far as the mental or psychical side of the human nature is concerned, when it is said that the "substance" of all individual souls was created in Adam, of course nothing extended and visible is implied. The substance in this case is a spiritual, rational, and immortal essence, similar to the unextended essence of God, in whose image it was made ex nihilo. And so far as the physical and corporeal side of man is concerned, the notion of "substance" must be determined in the same manner. That which stands under, that which is the substans of the corporeal form and phenomena, is an invisible principle that has no one of the geometrical dimensions. Physical life, or the animal soul, though not spiritual and immortal like the rational soul, is nevertheless beyond the reach of the five senses. It occupies no space; it is not divisible by any material instruments; it cannot be examined by the microscope. In speaking therefore of the primary created "substance" of the human body, we must abstract from the notion everything that implies figure and extension of parts. "The things which are seen were not made of things which do appear," Heb. 11: 3. The visible body is constituted, and built up by an invisible vitality. Neither the cell, nor protoplasm, nor the "aether". of Carus (Physiologie, I. 13), nor any visible whatever, can be regarded as the substans of the body; as the vital principle in its primordial mode. These are all of them extended, and objects of sensuous perception. They are the first form, in which the primarily formless physical life embodies itself. They each presuppose life as an invisible. In thinking, therefore, of the "substance" of all individual bodies as having been created in Adam, we must not with Tertullian and others think of microscopic atoms, corpuscles, or protoplasm; but only of the unseen principle of life itself, of which these are the first visible organization. Modern

physiology (Haeckel: Creation, I. 297) describes the human egg as part of an inch in diameter, so that in a strong light it can just be perceived as a small speck, by the naked eye. This egg is a small globular bladder which contains all the constituent parts of a simple organic cell. These parts are: (a) The mucous cell-substance or protoplasm, called the "yolk;" (b) The nucleus or cell-kernel, called the "germinal vesicle," which is surrounded by the yolk. This nucleus is a clear glassy globule of albumen about part of an inch in diameter; (c) The nucleolus, the kernel speck or "germinal spot." This is enclosed and surrounded by the nucleus, and is the last phase of visible life under the present microscope. But this nucleolus is not the invisible life itself in its first phase, as immediately created ex nihilo. This "germinal spot" is only the first hardening, as it were, of the invisible into visibility. It is life in this form; whereas, in the beginning, as created in Adam, physical life was formless and invisible.

Before entering upon the discussion of the two theories. of traducianism and creationism, we observe that there are several ways of handling the doctrine of original sin, or sin as related to Adam.

1. It may be held simply as a revealed fact, without any attempt at explanation. The theologian contents himself with affirming that Scripture teaches that all men were created holy in Adam, had an advantageous probation in Adam, sinned freely in Adam, and are justly exposed to physical and spiritual death upon these three grounds, and declines to construct any explanatory theory. In this case, he treats the doctrine of original sin as he does that of the creation of the universe. "Through faith he understands that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear," Heb. 11:3. Similarly, through faith he understands that "death passed upon all men because all sinned," Rom. 5:12; that "by one offence, judgment came upon all men to condemna

tion," Rom. 5-18; and that "in Adam all die," 1 Cor. 15: 22; and formulates this in the statement that "all mankind descending from Adam by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, in the first transgression," L. C. 22. But as he does not undertake to explain creation ex nihilo, neither does he undertake to explain the fall in Adam. He accepts the fact of revelation, in each case. He has reason to believe that the doctrine of the fall in Adam is truth, not error: first, because God would not reveal error; secondly, because God has inade an infinite self-sacrifice in order to deliver man from the guilt and pollution of original sin: a thing he would not have done, if he knows that it is not really and truly sin.

2. The doctrine may be held as a revealed fact, and an explanation attempted by the theory of natural or substantial union with Adam. In this case, Adam and his posterity existed together, and sinned together, as a unity. The posterity were not vicariously represented in the first sin, because representation implies the absence of the party represented; but they sinned the first sin being seminally existent and present; and this first sin is deservedly imputed to them, because in this generic manner it was committed by them. The guilt of the first sin, both as culpability (culpa) and obligation to the penalty of eternal death (reatus poenae), is chargeable upon Adam and his posterity upon the common principle that sin is chargeable upon the actor and author of it. The imputation of Adam's sin, upon this theory, differs from the imputation of Christ's righteousness, in being deserved, not undeserved or gratuitous.

3. The doctrine may be held as a fact of revelation, and an explanation of it attempted by the theory of representative or forensic union with Adam. In this case, Adam as an individual, distinct from Eve, and distinct from his posterity whom in respect to the soul he did not seminally include, sinned representatively and vicariously for his non-existent and absent posterity. As their vicar and representative, he

disobeyed the Eden statute in their room and place, precisely as Christ obeyed the moral law, in respect to both precept and penalty, as the vicar and representative of his people. The sin of Adam, consequently, is imputed to his posterity in the very same way that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer—namely, undeservedly or gratuitously. The posterity are not guilty in the sense of being inherently and personally ill deserving on account of Adam's sin, just as the believer is not righteous in the sense of being inherently and personally deserving on account of Christ's obedience. As in the latter instance, only the consequences without the inherent merit of Christ's obedience: namely, freedom from the obligation to suffer the penalty of eternal death, and a title to eternal life, inure to the believer, so in the former instance, only the consequences of Adam's disobedience without the inherent demerit: namely, the obligation to suffer the penalty of eternal death, and forfeiture of a title to eternal life, inure to his posterity. On this theory, Adam's sin itself, as a disobedient and rebellious act causative of the penalty of eternal death, is not imputed to the posterity, because it was not committed by them. Only its penal consequences are imputed. Adam's act is separated from its effect, namely, the penalty: the former not being chargeable to the posterity; the latter being imputed to and inflicted upon them. The posterity suffer the punitive evil produced by Adam's sin, but are not inherently and personally guilty of this sin itself.

4. The doctrine may be held as a fact of revelation, and an explanation of it attempted by a combination of natural with representative union. This is a middle theory between traducianism and creationism, combining elements of both. But like middle theories generally, it contains contradictory elements. If the posterity were present, as natural union implies, they could not be represented; for this supposes absence. If they were absent, as representative union implies, they could not be present, as natural union supposes.