GENETIC LAW OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY.
John Miley, D.D., LL.D.
We have sufficiently reviewed the theory of native depravity which account it a
penal retribution on the ground of a common participation in the sin of Adam, and have
found it unsustained in either the realistic or representative mode of such participation.
The disproof of this theory does not affect the reality of native depravity, but leaves it to
be accounted for in some other mode. There is an entirely sufficient account in the law of
genetic transmission. The corruption of the progenitors of the race is thus transmitted to
their offspring. The uniformity with which this law is accepted in doctrinal anthropology
greatly favors the theory which makes it the account of the common native depravity.
I. GENESIS OF PARENTAL QUALITY.
1. Reality of the Law.—It is a law of organic life that every thing produces its own
kind. This law was divinely instituted at the very beginning of life. 1 It has determined the
results of propagation through all the geological ages and in all organic order. It is the
determining law of species, and give us the orderly forms of life. If it were made known
simply that life is propagated in others worlds, sober science would promptly affirm the
reigning of the same law. The offspring are a reproduction of the parentage, not only in
anatomical structure and physiological constitution, but also in the qualities and instinct
and disposition. This is clearly seen in the higher animal orders. The lion of the present is
the lion of all previous generations. The ferocity of the tiger is a derivation from its
earliest parentage. The meekness and gentleness of the lamb of to-day were in the blood
of the paschal lamb many ages ago. Man himself is the most striking exemplification of
this law. Historically, the diversities of human condition are very great. There is a vast
scale from the lowest barbarism up to the highest civilization. The habits of life
engendered by location and the modes of subsistence widely differ. Governments,
customs, religions, all thing which strike the deepest into the nature of man, equally
differ. Yet in all the constitutive qualities of humanity man is always and every-where the
1
Genesis 1:11–12.
same. This universal and abiding identity is a genetic transmission from the progenitors
of the race down through all its generations.
2. Respecting the Transmission of Adamic Holiness.—On the obedience of Adam
and the maintenance of his own holiness of nature, his offspring would have received
their life and begun their probation in the same primitive holiness. There would still have
been the possible lapse of individuals, with the corruption of their own nature and the
consequent depravity of their offspring; but apart from this contingency, or so far as the
Adamic connection is concerned, all would have been born in the primitive holiness.
Under what law would such have been the consequence? Unquestionably, the law of
genetic transmission. Any notion of an immediate imputation of Adam’s personal
righteousness to his offspring as the judicial ground of their birth in subjective holiness is
utterly groundless. It must assume that without such imputation all must have been born
in depravity, which at once contradicts the determining law of propagation and the
holiness and goodness of God. There is no requirement for any other law than that of
genetic transmission. There is no place for any other.
3. Sufficient Account of Native Depravity.—As the law of genetic transmission
rules in all the forms of propagated life and determines. The likeness of the offspring to
the parentage, and as it was sufficient for the transmission of the primitive holiness to all
the race, it must be a sufficient account of the common native depravity. To deny this
sufficiency is to assume that simply under the law of nature the moral corruption of
Adam would not have been transmitted to his offspring, and consequently that they must
have been born in holiness. To assume an intervention of retributive justice, on the
ground of a common participation in the sin of Adam, as the only sufficient account of
the universal native depravity, is to imply the same results. The implication is utterly in
error. Simply under the law of nature the corruption of Adam must have been transmitted
to his offspring, and consequently the could not have been born in the primitive holiness.
All this is really conceded by such as hold the common depravity to be a punishment. We
have previously seen that this view of punishment is maintained in order to vindicate the
divine providence in the existence of so great an evil. But except for the efficiency of the
law of nature which determines the likeness of the offspring to the parentage there would
have been no common evil of depravity requiring the divine vindication. Why account
the corruption of human nature a punishment when it exists in the fullest accord with all
the analogies of propagation? Punishment is not thought of in any other instance of
likeness in the offspring to the parentage. The sufficient account is in the law of genetic
transmission. There is no requirement in either nature or Scripture or reason for any
other.
Seemingly, this law of genetic transmission should rule in the instance of
regenerate or sanctified parents, and determine the subjective holiness of their offspring.
Yet the truth of a common native depravity, as previously maintained, forbids this
inference. Why should the Adamic connection rule in such instances instead of the
immediate connection? This question naturally arises; nor is it without perplexity. It
might be answered, that in the present life the sanctification is not complete; that a
measure of depravity remains in the regenerate. This doctrine is formulated in most
orthodox creeds, and hence furnishes the ground for such an answer as we here suggest.
However, it is one which cannot be given by such as hold the doctrine of entire
sanctification, and maintain that there are actual instances of such sanctification. There is
a further answer, which fully accords with the former doctrine, and is seemingly the only
one in accord with the latter. The regenerate or sanctified state is specially a gracious
state, and not of the original constitution of man. It is provided for in the economy of
redemption, and achieved through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit, and
therefore is not transmissible through natural generation. The limitations of such a law
are as real in the completely sanctified as in the regenerate in whom the rudiments of
depravity may still remain. There is such a law in nature. The fruit of the graft produces,
not its own special quality, but that of the natural stock.
II. THE TRUE LAW OF DEPRAVITY.
If this is not the true law of native depravity, the Scripture proofs of depravity
itself must be at fault, and the Catholic doctrine of its transmission must be in error. It
will be easy to justify these statements.
1. The Scripture Doctrine.—The creeds which formulate a doctrine of native
depravity, and the theologians who maintain such a doctrine, both appeal to the
Scriptures for its proof. Many of the evidences thus adduced, and especially the more
explicit, rest on the ground of a genetic transmission of depravity. Reference to a few
texts will show this. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.”2 An
unclean vessel defiles its content. This deeper idea of the text illustrates the law of native
depravity. The reference in the close connection is to natural generation or birth as the
source of depravity. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me.”3 There is in this text the sense of native evil, but an evil inherited through natural
generation. The same truth is given in the profound words of our Lord on the necessity
for spiritual regeneration.4 The necessity lies in the fact that “that which is born of the
flesh is flesh.” This means the inheritance of a corrupt nature through natural generation.
Thus the leading texts which prove the reality of native depravity equally prove its
genetic transmission.
2. The Catholic Doctrine.—No element of the Augustinian anthropology has been
more fully or uniformly asserted than the genetic transmission of depravity. There is no
reserve in Augustine’s expression of his own view. In nothing have his followers in
doctrine more closely adhered to his teaching. This element is common to the doctrinal
formulas of original sin in the creeds of the Churches: The Eastern or Greek Church; 5 the
Roman Catholic Church;6 Protestant Churches.7 The eminent theologians of the Churches
follow in the maintenance of this doctrine. There is no need of a law of penal retribution
to account for a result which is thus accounted for simply on a law of nature.
If it should be said that the genetic transmission of Adamic depravity is simply the
mode in which the divine judgment is executed, the answer is at hand. The position, by
inevitable implication, denies that the law of propagation which determines the likeness
of the offspring to the parentage was original to the constitution of man, while
confessedly original with all other living orders, and assumes that it was subsequently
ordained for man simply as the means of a judicial infliction of depravity upon all. Such
2
Job 14:4.
Psalm 51:5.
4
John 3:3–7.
5
The Orthodox Confession, Q. 24: Larger Catechism, Q. 168.
6
Decree of the Council of Trent concerning Original Sin.
7
The Augsburg Confession, article ii; The Belgic Confession, article xv; The Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England, article ix; The Synod of Dort, De Hominis Corruptione, sec. ii; The Westminster
Confession, chapter vi, sec. iii.
3
implications contradict all relative facts, and utterly discredit the principle which involves
them.
3. The Arminian Doctrine.—Arminianism has not the exact and comprehensive
formulations of doctrine which we find in some other systems, as, for instance, the
Lutheran and the Reformed or Calvinistic. No general synod or council has ever taken
this work in hand; yet in other modes the leading doctrines of the system are set forth
with satisfactory clearness and fullness. Respecting the genetic transmission of depravity
there is full accordance with other systems of theology. Expressions are frequently met,
particularly in the older Arminianism, and in the Wesleyan, which, at least, imply judicial
ground of the common depravity, but never in contradiction to its genetic mode. The
tendency is toward the recognition of this law as the sufficient and whole account of it. 8
This is definitely and explicitly the view of Dr. Whedon.9
On the present question our own article is very definite. Original or birth sin “is
the corruption of the nature or every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of
Adam.”10 There is neither suggestion nor implication of any judicial ground of the
common depravity. The emphasis placed upon the law of propagation from Adam down
through the whole race excludes the sense of a penal infliction on the ground of a
common Adamic sin. This sense would require us to hold the propagation simply as the
mode of the penal infliction; but, as previously pointed out, such propagation is
determined by a law of nature which is common to all orders of propagated life, and
therefore cannot be the mere mode of a punishment in any specific case. On any
consistent interpretation, the article accounts the common native depravity simply a
genetic transmission. This is the specific doctrinal formula of the Methodist Episcopal
Church on the question. The same article is held by the other Methodist Churches. We
know not any exception.
4. Unaffected Reality of Native Depravity.—The reality of native depravity is not
involved in the question of its penal infliction. Those who hold this view equally hold its
genetic transmission; and both its reality and character are determined by the law of
8
Arminius: Writings, volume i, p. 486; Hill: Divinity, pp.389–400; Shedd: History of Christian Doctrine,
volume ii, pp.178–186.
9
Methodist Quarterly Review, 1861, pp. 649–651. Also Raymond: Systematic Theology, volume, ii, pp.
109–336; Summers: Systematic Theology, volume ii, p. 46.
10
Article vii.
propagation. As the offspring of Adam, we all inherit the depravity of nature into which
he fell through transgression. It is no less a reality than if a judicial infliction. The
noxious quality of a poisonous tree is just as real, and the very same, under the law or
propagation as it the immediate product of a divine malediction. The same is true for the
ferocity of a tiger propagated from a parentage synchronal with Adam. So the common
depravity genetically transmitted is just as real, and the very same in its own nature, as if
a penal retribution. Its reality is not place in any doubt by the disproof of its judicial
ground.