Boultbee on Article XV: Of Christ alone without Sin

The Latin title is slightly more definite than the English^ * qui solus est sine peccato.” * Clearly void ’ is in the Latin ^prorsus immunisJ’ * Clearly ’ must therefore be understood not in the sense of manifestly, but so 03 to he clear, * entirely void.’

There are only one or two very slight verbal differences between this Article and the fourteenth of 1552. The history of the text presents no feature of special interest.

OF CHRIST ALONE WirHOUT SUf; 12^

The Chief DmsiONS of Article XV.

1. That Christ was * very man ’ has been already demon- strated under Article 11. This is reasserted, with the addition of the absolute sinlessness of our Lord both in flesh and spirit..

2. This sinlessness made Him the perfect and sufficient sacrifice.

3. No other human being is free from sin.

The proofs from Scripture may be directed to establish, these several propositions.

Observations on Article XV.

We have noticed already (p. 63) the presumption of some- of the Anabaptists, who asserted that they had attained a sinless condition. This will further come imder notice in the next Article. Neither need we comment further on the Pelagian notion of the possibility of a man leading a perfectly holy lif. The history of the Article will mainly centre in the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. Li Field’s, learned * Book of the Church,’ there will be found a full exposition of the novelty of this opinion. It was first defi- nitely discussed by the schoolmen. About a.d. 1300, Duns Scotus made it part of his system, and thenceforward the Scotists and Franciscans upheld it. On the other hand,, the Thomists and Dominicans, following Thomas Aquinas,, opposed it.

Early in the sixteenth century, the imposture practised by some Dominicans at Berne on the young monk Jetzer made this contest notorious.^ In the age of the Reformation the Roman Church was about equally divided on the subject. Cardinal Cajetan, well known in the history of Luther, pre- sented a treatise to Leo X., controverting the doctrine as novel and untrue. From this treatise. Field (ut supra) gives the following extract :

• St. Augustine, writing upon the thirty-fourth Psalm, saith

Append. III. 6. « Sec D’Aubign^, * Hist, of Ref.’ viii. 2.

K

that ” Adam died for sin ; that Mary who came out of the loins of Adam died for sin ; bat that the flesh of the Lord, which He took of the Virgin Maij, died to take away sin.” And in his second book, ” De Baptismo Parvnlomm,” ” He only, who ceasing not to be God became man, never had sin, neither did He take the flesh of sin, or sinfnl flesh, though He look the flesh of His mother that was sinftd.” And in his tenth book, ^’ De Genesi ad literam,” he saith : ” Though the body of Christ were taken of the flesh of a woman that was conceived out of the propagation of sin^ flesh, yet bec&use He was not so conceived of her as she was conceived, therefore it was not sinful flesh, but the similitude of sinful flesh.” And St. Ambrose, upon those words. Blessed are the undefiledj hath these words : ” The Lord Jesus came ; and that flesh that was subject to sin in His mother performed the war£u*e of virtue.” And St. Chrysostom, upon Matthew, saith : ” Though Christ was no sinner, yet He took the nature of man, of a woman that was a sinner.” And Eusebius Emis- senus (about 350), in his second sermon upon the Nativit}’, hath these words : ” There is none free from the tie and bond of original sin, no, not the mother of the Redeemer.” St. Remigius (about 850) saith : ” The blessed Virgin Mary was made clean from all stain of sin, that the man Christ Jesus might be conceived of her without sin.” ’ St. Maximus, St. Bede, St. Bernard, and other Romish saints, are in like manner quoted.

Scotus himself propounded the doctrine of the immaculate conception cautiously, whilst Thomas Aquinas, following Lombard and the earlier doctors of the Church, absolutely denied it.

At the Council of Trent the two conflicting doctrines on the immaculate conception came into open collision.

The matter was referred to the Pope, who suggested a middle course. There was therefore the following rider at- tached to the first decree of the fiflh Session : —

• This Holy Council, however, declares that it is not their intention to comprehend in this decree, where it treats of original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the

mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the penalties contained in these constitutions, which the Council renews.’

These constitutions also were neutral. In 1476 Sixtus IV. forbad the Franciscans to be accused of heresy on this point. But though he favoured the Franciscans, he did not pro nounce any decision on the doctrine.

Since the era of the Reformation, mainly perhaps through the dominant influence of the Jesuits, the belief in the im- maculate conception has more and more widely prevailed in the Roman Church. Finally (December 9, 1854), Pius IX. issued his bull, declaring the belief in that doctrine to be a matter of faith, almost without opposition.

The notion of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary will bt^ found in an earlier form than that which has ultimately pre- vailed in the Roman Church. Many who held that she was conceived in sin, thought that she was either sanctified m the womb, or at least from her birth, so as to be without sin. These ideas will be found in some of the quotations in the extract given above from Cajetan. Augustine thought it more reverential to abstain from discussing the question. Origen and Chrysostom, commenting on her history in the Gospels, distinctly attribute sin to her. For fuller details on this sub- ject the student is referred to Field (w« m]pra).

TL%