Boultbee on Article IX: Of Original or Birth-sin

The Latin text in this Article calls for particular notice. It is a link of connection with the scholastic phraseology of the Middle Ages, which must to some extent be understood hj all who desire to appreciate the doctrinal position assumed by our Reformers. For they had been trained in the language, and now stood opposed to the system of the schoolmen. The following Latin and English equivalents may be especially noted : —

1. In imitatione Adami^^ In the following of Adam.’

[…]

4. In Unoquoque nascentium = * Every person bom.’ [Obs. : nascentium not natorum. This accurately implies a<, not after ^ their birth.]

5. Renatis =* Regenerated.’

6. Natures depravatio =* Infection of nature.’

[…]

8. Renatis et credenttbus =* For them that believe and are baptized.’ [Obs. : though renatis is here used as an equivalent for baptized^ it does not seem to imply full spiritual birth, because it is qualified by the word believe. All who have that true birth of the Spirit do believe. Faith is the element in which they live.]

9. Peccati rationem =* Nature of sin.’

[…]

This Article has only some slight and verbal differences from the Eighth of 1552. The latter, however, added to the assertion about the Pelagians these words, * which also the Anabaptists do now-a-days renew.’ The notice of the Anabaptists under Article VII. will sufficiently illustrate this.

The Article is said by Bishop Browne and Archdeacon Hardwick to have been derived from the Augsburg Confes-. aion. This assertion can scarcely be maintained in any very exact sense, on a close inspection of the text of the two docu-

ments, as may be seen from the following English version of the Second Article of the Augsburg Coofession : —

’ Thej also teach that since the &11 of Adam, all men, natu- rally begotten, are bom with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without &ith towards God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease or £iult of origin is truly sin, condemning, and even now bringing eternal death to those who are hot bom again by baptism and the Holy Spirit.

’ They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that the fault of origin is sin, and in order to diminish the glory of the merit and benefits of Christy maintain that a man can be jus- tified before God by the power of his own reason.’

The similitude between the English and Augsburg forms does not seem much more than the general family likexjiess which runs through all the Reformed Confessions.

The Main Divisions of Article IX.

1. Original sin is defined (A.) negatively, (B.) positively.

2. Its universality and degree.

3. It is in itself deserving of the wrath of God.

4. It remains in the regenerate.

5. Nevertheless, true believers have no condemnation.

6. The indwelling sinful desire, irrespective of indulgence or of action, has the nature or ratio of sin.

The student wiU do wisely if he carefully collects and con- siders passages of Scripture, proving these separate proposi- tions. He will thus obtain clear doctrinal conclusions, instead of confusedly gathering the general notion of man’s sinfulness.

The History of the Doctrine of Original Sin.

It is assumed that the student is &miliar with the Oriental notions of the Gnostics and Manichees of the first three centuries, as to the connexion of moral and spiritual evil with matter.

It is also assumed that the history of th’^ Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversies of the fifbh century is sufficiently known.

“We omit, therefore, further notice of these. But in order to understand the phraseology of this Article and the ques- tions really at issue, we must refer to the schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the received Homan theology. For the position taken up in this and the following doctrinal Articles, although by no means merely negative, is to a great degree one of antagonism to Rome. These Articles are strongly and scripturally constructive and positive; but in their most deQnite statements the opposite Romish doctrine seems to be held in view. The schoolmen are named in Article XIII. ; and indeed it will at once be seen that the Reformers, trained as they were in the scholastic theology, could scarcely avoid writing with a reference, direct or implied, to the terms and principles of that system.

The ’ Summa Theologise ’ of Thomas Aquinas was dominant in the schools before the Reformation. His doctrine of ori- ginal sin was more plainly expounded by the great Roman Catholic controversialist, Bellarmine, at the close of the six- teenth century; and we shall endeavour to give a simple account of it, as it lies at the basis of many ill-imderstood controversies.

It is the less dif&cult to do so, as those divines, whatever their errors may be, are generally very exact in their defini- tions. [The most accessible books on the subject will pro- bably be WiUefs ‘Synopsis Papismi,’ and MUller’s * Christian Doctrine of Sin,’ Clark’s translation.]

In order to arrive at a knowledge of the nature of original sin, these authors discuss what Adam lost by the fall. They assert that the original righteousness in which Adam stood was no part of his nature, but a supernatural gift superadded to it. They say that he was created mortal, but had the superadded gift of immortality. Hence the result of the fall was simply a withdrawal of the superadded gifts, and a reduc- tion of man to the state in which he would have been without them. Bellarmine thus enunciates this theory : — * The state of man after the fall of Adam differs from the state of Adam in what was purely natural to him (in puris naturalihus) no more than a man who is stripped differs from a naked man. Nor

is human nature worse, if you take away original sin, nor does it labour more with ignorance and infirmity, than it would be and would labour in what is purely natural as it was created.’

The singular comparison used above explains exactly the scholastic idea. Adam was originally (spiritually) naked. He was mortal. He was then clothed with the supernatural gifts of grace and immortality. Upon his fall he was stripped of these, and became spiritually naked and mortal, just as* he was created ; save that the Almighty now viewed him with displeasure, as a creature who had trifled with and lost pre- cious gifts, and was destitute of that which he ought to hav^. Thus original sin is not a positive quality or inherent evil dis- position, but simply an absence of the original righteousness.

How, then, do these divines deal with a more practical and more formidable question — the most conspicuous and most disastrous feature in man’s history — his tendency to sin? On the above theory, this, to which they gave the name of concupiscenttay used also in our Article, was denied to be sin. For if fallen man stood as Adam stood, in all purely natural respects, and was only exposed to wrath as lacking the gifts he had trifled with, then the concupiscence, or tendency to sin, had in it no necessary guilt. For man was in this respect as God had made him, and that could not be a state of guilt.

It may now be seen in what respect baptism was held by these divines to put away original sin. It is manifest that it does not take away the concupiscence. But it was conceivable that it might restore the supernatural gifls lost by the fall. The gift of immortality, indeed, and exemption from earthly suffering were obviously excepted. But the Catechism of the Council of Trent * accounts for this by saying that the bap- tized members must not be in a more exalted condition than Christ their head was ; and that infirmities and sufferings lead the Christian to greater heights of virtue and consequent glory than otherwise he could attain.

We are now in a position to refer to the dogma of the Council of Trent on original sin. There was too much divi-

’ Part ii. c. ii. Q. 47.

. I

eion of opinion in the Council to allow them to agree upon n definition of original sin itself. But the Fifbh Session passed this decree, bearing on some of the principal points in the present Article : —

^If any one denies that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or moreover asserts that the whole is not taken away of that which has the true and proper nature (ratio) of sin : but says that it is only cut down or not imputed ;

let him be anathema Nevertheless, this holy Council

doth confess a&d is of opinion that concupiscence, or the fuel of sin, remaineth in the baptized ; which being left for the purpose of trial, cannot hurt those who do not consent to it, but manftdly through the grace of Christ resist it … . The holy Council declares that the Catholic Church hath never imderstood that this concupiscence, which the Apostle some- times calls sin, is called sin because sin is truly and properly in the regenerate, but because it is of sin, and indines to sin. If anyone hold a contrary opinion, let him be anathema.’

This doctrine is substantially that of Aquinas and Bellar- mine, but more cautiously worded.

Looking now at our Article, we see the full force of its several parts. It first guards against Pelagianism. It then proceeds to define original sin in language intentionally op- posed to the Scholastic and Tridentine doctrine. It omits the question wherein the original righteousness of man con- sisted. It asserts that original sin is a vitiuni et depravatio of nature in every man. This must be widely different from the mere lack of superadded righteousness, the privatio of the scholastics. It says that man has departed in no slight degree, but quam hngissime, from original righteousness. It says that this infection of nature remains in the regenerate. It further asserts, in opposition to the Eoman dogma, that the concupiscentia itself, apart from indulgence, has the nature ^ratio) of sin. It omits the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity, herein agreeing with the Confes- sion of Augsburg, as well as the Helvetic, Saxon, and Belgic Confessions. On the other hand, the Confession of Faith of

the Assembly of Divines at Westminster (which is the author- ised Confession of the Established Church of Scotland) asserts ikkis plainly (c. vi. 3) :

*They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin vras imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordi- nary geperation.’

The series of doctrinal discourses by Bullinger, known as his Decades, were enjoined as a subject of study upon the less educated clergy in Elizabeth’s time. From Dee iii. s. 4 the following passage is selected on the sinfulness of concupiscence : * Concupiscence is a motion or affection of the mind, which of our corrupt nature doth lust against God and His law, and stirreth us up to wickedness, although the consent or deed itself doth not presently follow upon our conceit… . Where- fore that evil and unlawful affection, which is of our natural corruption and lieth hid in our nature, but betrayeth itself in our hearts against the pureness of Gods law and majesty, is that very sin which in the tenth commandment is condemned. For although there be some which think that such motions, diseases, blemishes, and affections of the mind are no sins, yet God, by forbidding them in this law, doth flatly condemn them. But if any man doubt of this ex- position, let him hear the word of the Apostle, who saith : ” I knew not sin but by the law ; for I had not known lust except the law had said. Thou shalt not lust. Without the law sin was dead : I once lived without law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I was dead.” And again : ” The affection of the flesh is death, but the affection of the spirit is life and peace : because the affection of the flesh is enmity against God : for it is not obedient to the law of God, neither can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The affection of concupiscence, therefore, doth condenm us ; or, as I should rather say, we are worthily con- demned by the just judgment of God for our concupiscence, which doth every hour and moment bewray itself in the thoughts of our hearts.’

The Homily * Of the Misery of Mankind ’ sets forth from

Scripture man’s lost condition, and the imperfection of his best works, in ‘forcible language. But the style is popular, and does not enter into theological distinctions.

There is also a striking passage in Hooker’s ’ Discourse of Justification’ (sec. 7). It does not speak expressly of the sin- fulness of concupiscence, but, if it be not sin, the language has no force and the ideas are not true : * If our hands did never offer violence to our brethren, a bloody thought doth prove us murderers before Him : if we had never opened our mouth to utter any scandalous, offensive, or hurtful word, the cry of our secret cogitations is heard in the ears of God… . Let the holiest and best things which we do be considered. We are never better affected to God than when we pray ; yet, when ive pray, how are our affections many times distracted ! How little reverence do we show imto the grand majesty of God, unto whom we speak ! How little remorse of our own mise- ries ! How little taste of the sweet influences of His tender mercies do we feel I • . . The best things which we do have somewhat in them to be pardoned. How, then, can we do anything meritorious or worthy to be rewarded ? … We see how far we are from the perfect righteousness of the law ; the little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound; we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to reckoning as if we had Him in our debt-books ; our continual suit to Him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities and pardon our offences.’