In this series of posts, I want to offer a presentation of the Adamic Covenant from an Augustinian Realist perspective. For those unfamiliar with Realism, and how it pertains to Anthropology, it might be best to contrast it with the more familiar concept of Federalism. To put it succinctly, the difference between these two schools has to do with how they view the nature of Adam's union with the rest of mankind. The question is: In the first Covenant, did Adam represent mankind, or did he constitute mankind? Was the union federal, or was it natural (real)?
While this may not seem like an important question, I can assure you, the implications of taking either position over the other will affect your whole doctrine of Anthropology. How so? If Federalism is correct, then when Adam sinned, he sinned for us; but if Realism is correct, then when Adam sinned, we sinned in him. Obviously, there's a big difference between these two propositions, and by the time we get to the issues involved with Original Sin, it becomes extremely important. But more on that in a future post.
The Parties of the Covenant
On the surface of it, the Genesis account seems to show that the parties involved in the Covenant were two persons only. On the one hand, there was God, and on the other hand, there was Adam. However, on further reflection, we realize that the two-person construct fails for at least two reasons. First, as any good trinitarian knows, the God of the Bible is not one person but three persons in one nature. Second, and more to the point of this post, when God instituted the Covenant of Works, Adam was not contracting as an individual person. As question 22 of the Westminster Larger Catechism reminds us, he was acting as a “publick person.”
It’s important to note that the term “publick” comes from the Latin publicus from the root populus, and simply means “people.” A publick person is one who acts in the common interest of other persons in addition to himself. This relation, however, depends on some preexisting union which serves as a basis for such an arrangement. And according to the Catechism, that preexisting union was the natural and substantial union which Adam had with the race as “the head and root of all mankind.”
So instead of a two-person construct, I would argue that we should utilize the language of a two-party construct. In this way, we can leave room for the various “unities” involved. On the one hand, there was God, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and on the other hand, there was the entire human race, acting in the person of the first man.
The One Or The Many?
One of the key passages from which this position is derived is Romans 5:12. Here, Paul explains why death passed upon all men as a consequence of one man’s sin. It was because at that time the entire human race was acting as one man.
// Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned //
From this passage, two things can be established. First, according to Paul, only one sin was responsible for bringing death into the world. That much is clear from the context since the “sin” of verse 12 corresponds to the “one offense” (ενος παραπτωματος) of verse 18.
Second, all men really participated in that one sin. We know that because when Paul says “all sinned” he puts the verb “sinned” (ημαρτον) in the aorist, active, indicative form. That being the case, we can rule out several interpretations, including those of John Calvin[1] and Charles Hodge.[2]
Calvin's interpretation doesn't fit because the phrase “all sinned” cannot mean “all were made sinful as a consequence of the first sin.” If that's what Paul meant, he would’ve used the passive rather than the active form of the verb. Moreover, Hodge’s interpretation doesn't work because “all sinned” doesn't mean “all were regarded to have sinned, but really did not.” I would argue that to side with Hodge is to compromise more than the just the grammar of the text. On his view, we compromise the very justice of God. (But again, more on that later.)
To avoid these difficulties, I would say the best interpretation is the one that takes the phrase “all sinned” just the way it comes. As William Shedd puts it, “ἥμαρτον is nothing but sinned, and the force of the aorist is to be retained. A particular historical event is intended: All sinned when sin entered into the world by one man.”[3]
At this point, it is very important to understand exactly what I’m arguing, so let me state it as clearly as I can. For Paul to say that death is the consequence of one sin, and yet that the one sin was committed both by “one man” and “all men,” he can only be teaching what Augustine would later teach: “By the evil will of that one man, all sinned in him, since all were that one man.”[4]
If you’re having a hard time following, then let me say it this way. In Romans 5:12, Paul identifies the “all” at the end of the verse with the “one man” at the beginning of the verse. And because of that, Paul is teaching us that God entered into the Covenant of Works with Man, not as an individual person, but as a generic unity.
The One And The Many
As I mentioned above, many of the early Reformed theologians defended this position. This can be seen in many ways, one of which is the fact that when they described the union between Adam and his posterity, they used various Latin terms like massa, natura, and essentia, all of which denote the generic unity of the human race. What this shows is that the earliest Protestant Divines were self-consciously Augustinian in their Anthropology. “For the whole mass of the human race is condemned” says Augustine, “for he who at first gave entrance to sin has been punished with all his posterity who were in him as in a root.”[5]
But the Reformed didn’t just follow Augustine blindly. Rather, because they knew from Scripture that God made all the nations of men from one man (Acts 17:26), they could see that all of his posterity was really and necessarily in Adam when he sinned and fell in that first transgression. In this way, they reasoned that the first sin was just as much ours as it was his. According to Zacharias Ursinus, “The offense of Adam is also ours, for we were all in Adam when he sinned, as the Apostle testifies: “We have all sinned in him.”[6]
This exact interpretation of Romans 5:12 was later codified in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, as can be seen by the proof-texts the Assembly listed to substantiate their answer to question sixteen.
Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression? A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression — Gen. 2:16-17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.
In the Loins of Adam
While these various terms and expressions were widely used among the Reformed, the most common way of speaking was to say that all men sinned “in the loins of Adam.”
For example, in the earliest issue of his, “Esposilio Catechismi Heidelberg” (p 43), Ursinus writes, “But we all suffer justly the fault of Adam because it is so the fault of Adam, that it is also ours; for we all sinned in sinning Adam, because we were all in his loins."
Likewise, Caspar Olevianus, in his Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed, defines Original Sin as "that transgression in Adam’s loins, and the consequent corruption that I carry around in the flesh.”[7]
Again, David Pareus, commenting on Romans 5:12, writes: “There is a participation of the sin, for all of his posterity were seminally in his loins, so that all sinned in his sin, as Levi paid tithes in the loins of Abraham.”[8]
Note here that the mention of Levi is a direct reference to Hebrews 7:9-10, giving us conclusive proof that the early Reformers held to a real race-participation in the first sin. For them, this was is the necessary consequence of the natural and substantial unity of all men in Adam.[9]
The Reformed Consensus
Augustinian Realism was not the position only of a handful of early Reformed theologians. Rather, it was the position of the overwhelming majority of all the Reformed churches in the 16th and 17th centuries. And this can be seen in two ways.
First, it can be seen by the sheer number of theologians and commentators that used this language of “Adam’s Loins.” While a multitude of quotations could be brought forth, I chose the following sample of citations for the purpose of showing that the consensus of Reformed theologians extended to different times and places.
Wolfgang Musculus of Dieuze, France (1497-1563): “Some explain the word ἥμαρτον to mean that we are condemned, or virtually constituted sinners, on account of sin; which is, indeed true; but there is no reason why you should not thereby understand the actual sin of Adam, in whom all that existed in his loins have sinned.” (Epistolam Apostoli Pauli; Rom. 5:12)
Jerome Zanchius of Bergamo, Italy (1516-1590): “Because the whole human race, which is propagated by natural generation from Adam, were in his loins, hence the precept, with its penalty, was not addressed to the person of Adam alone, but also pertained to the whole human race." (De Peccato; De Natura Dei.)
Anthony Fay of Geneva, Switzerland (1540-1615): “We believe that the sin of Adam, whilst it was the act of an individual, was common to the whole species, inasmuch as Adam was not made a private person, but was constituted by God the fountain of the whole race. For the human race was lying hid in the loins of Adam. Therefore it is not of another's sin that we are reckoned guilty, but of our own; since in Adam we all eat of the forbidden fruit.” (En chirid. Theologic., disp. 37.)
Samuel Rutherford of Nisbet Scotland (1600-1661): “And truly it is bad divinity for Dr. Crispe to say, ‘As we are actual and real sinners, in Adam, so here, God passeth really sin over upon Christ.’ For we sinned intrinsically in Adam, as parts, as members, as being in his loins, and we are thence “by nature the children of wrath” (Ephes., ii).” (The Trial and Triumph of Faith (Edinburgh: Assembly’s Committee, 1845), 239.)
Thomas Watson of Cambridge, England (1620-1686): “If when Adam fell, all mankind fell with him; why, when one angel fell, did not all fall? The case is not the same. The angels had no relation to one another, but it was otherwise with us, we were in Adam’s loins; as a child is a branch of the parent, we were part of Adam; therefore when he sinned, we sinned.” (Body of Divinity, Ch. 20, Original Sin).
Second, this can be shown by the fact that even as late as 1675 the Formula Consensus Helvetica, written by Heidegger of Zurich and Turretin of Geneva, utilized this same language. In other words, Augustinian Realism has confessional status. In the two canons that deal directly with the making (and breaking) of the Covenant of Works, the confession argues that (in both cases) man was acting in the unity of human nature.
First, in Canon X, it says God entered into the covenant “not only with Adam for himself, but also, in him as the head and root with the whole human race.” Then, in Canon XI, we read that, now, man is exposed to God's wrath and curse “on account of the transgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam.”
Summary
The Adamic Covenant was made between God and man. But in view of these important historical and theological considerations, neither party should be understood as consisting merely of a single individual. Instead, both God and man are complex unities, and each party must be seen as “the one and the many.” This is the only way Paul could say in Romans 5:12 that all men sinned in the one sin of the one man that brought death into the world. Truly, apart from a clear understanding of what I call a “race-participation in the first sin” such a statement would be utterly incomprehensible.
Thankfully, it’s not incomprehensible. But as I’ve shown, the Reformed have always understood what Paul is teaching in this text. In fact, they not only understood it, but they've explained it to us clearly and consistently in their writings as well as their confessions.
It’s no wonder that John Junius, Preacher at Delft, could say with such an amazing sense of confidence that "All the Reformed churches agree, and teach with unanimous consent, in accordance with the sacred scriptures and the universal agreement of antiquity; first, that the sin of Adam was not a personal sin, but of the whole human race, inasmuch as they were all included in the loins of Adam.”[10]
