Gibson on Article IX: Of Original or Birth-sin

The original object of this Article is shown very definitely by the words which in the Article of 1553 followed the reference to the Pelagians : ” which also the Anabaptists do nowadays renew ” (et hodie Anabaptistse repetunt). These words, omitted at the revision of 1563 (possibly because the danger was less pressing), prove 24

i«j

that it was designed at least primarily to meet the revival of the Pelagian error on the subject of original sin by the Anabaptists.^ A further object was probably to state the view of the Church of England on the effect of baptism in the removal of original sin, more particularly with regard to ” concupiscence,” which all parties admitted to remain in the regenerate, but concerning the character and precise nature of which widely differing views were advanced.

Except for the omission of the words just noticed, the Article has stood without substantial change since it was first drawn up in 1553.^ It has been sometimes thought that its language is based on that used in the Confession of Augsburg ; but the resemblance is very slight.^ Nor is it much closer to the corresponding Article in the Thirteen drawn up in 1538 by a joint committee of Anglicans and Lutherans, which does little more than

[…]

2 Two slight changes in the English should be noticed. Where our present Article uses the phrase “original righteousness,” the Edwardian Article had “his former righteousness, which he had at his creation ” ; and instead of “inclined to evil ” it had “given to evil.” The alterations made at the revision of 1571 brought the English into closer conformity with the Latin.

repeat the Lutheran formulary with the addition of a reference to the loss of original righteousness.^ But though the language of our Article cannot be traced to any earlier source, the following passage from the Reformatio Legum illustrates its teaching, and points even more distinctly to the revival of the Pelagian heresy by a section of the Anabaptists : —

“In labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, deinde etiam Anabaptistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarum Scripturarum est, quod peccatum originis in Adamo solo haeserit, et non ad posteros transient, nee uUam afferat naturae nostne perversitatem, nisi quod ex Adami delicto propositum sit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandam et usurpandam. Et similiter nobis contra illos progrediendum est, qui tantum in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, ut eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus vivi posse constituant.” ^

The principal subjects to be considered in connection with this Article are the following :

1. Original sin.

2. The effect of baptism in the removal of original sin.

3. The character of concupiscence.

I. Oryjinal Sin,

Under this head there are various points which require elucidation —

(a) The phrase ” original sin.”

(h) The Pelagian heresy, as showing what original sin is not.

’ lififormafio Legum Ecclesiasticanim, l)e llceres, c. 7.

•si

(c) Original righteousness, as that from which man is ” very far gone.”

(d) The effect of the Fail.

(a) The phrase ” original sin ” (Peccatum originale or peccatum originis).^ This does not occur anywhere in Holy Scripture, but is due to S. Augustine, who makes use of it in one of his earlier works ; * and from his day forward it is of frequent occurrence, being made current coin through the Pelagian controversy. The phrase was perhaps suggested to Augustine by the similar expression ” originis injuriam” which had been used by S. Ambrose ; ^ while still earlier S. Cyprian had said of a new-born infant, “secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquse prima nativitate contraxit.”*

(b) The Pelagian heresy, as showing what omjinal sin is not.

This heresy originated early in the fifth century. Its founder, Pelagius, was a monk of British extraction who had settled at Eome. There he took offence at the wellknown saying of Augustine, “Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt,” which seemed to him to exalt the Divine at the expense of the human in the work of salvation.^ Subsequently he and his friend and convert, Coelestius, elaborated the system which has since borne his name. His character may be seen from the charges which were brought against Coelestius at a Council held in 412 at Carthage, whither the two friends

^ The two expressions are evidently regarded as convertible terms. The latter is used in the text of the Article, the former in the title.

[…]

’^ ” Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis,” Conf. X. c. xxix. Cf. De dono persev. c. xx., where Augustine himself refers to this fact.

had passed from Eome. The charges (to which Coelestius returned evasive answers) were these: —

1. That Adam was created mortal, and would have died even if he had not sinned.

2. That his sin injured himself alone, and not the whole human race.

3. That infants at their birth are in the same condition in which Adam was before the Fall.

4. That unbaptized infants as well as others would obtain eternal life.

5. That mankind neither died through Adam’s death or transgression, nor would rise again through Christ’s resurrection.

6. That the law had the same effect as the gospel in leading men to the kingdom of heaven.

7. That even before Christ came there had been sinless men.i

Of these tenets the second and third are the most important, as being most intimately connected with the whole system that was subsequently known as Pelagianism. They amount to (a) a denial that the fall of Adam had affected his descendants ; and (b) closely connected with this ” a denial of the necessity of supernatural and directly assisting grace in order to any true service of God on the part of man.”* This latter seems to have been in the order of time prior to the first mentioned, which, however, is its ground and basis. Admit in any true sense the Fall, and Divine grace becomes a necessity. Deny the Fall, and grace may perhaps be dispensed with and human nature without supernatural assistance be found equal to the conflict with sin.

• Bright, p. ix.

^\

There was, however, the fact of universal depravity to be explained. What account could be given of the fact that sin is found everywhere ? Pelagius could only explain it by saying that it resulted from the universal followinf/ of Adapts example. Adam’s fall, according to him, had no effect on the nature of his descendants. But by sinning he set an example which all, or almost all (for Pelagius admitted exceptions), had followed. This is the view of original sin which was revived by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, and which is condemned in the opening words of our Article. Original

sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk. The meaning of

the English phrase is made clear by a reference to the Latin, Peccatum originis non est in imitatione Adami situm. “Standeth not ” is equivalent to “does not consist;”^ ” the following of Adam ” is the imitation of him, or sinning after his example.

In support of the assertion of the Article, and the position taken up by the Church on this subject, it appears to be sufficient to appeal to the teaching of S. Paul in Piom. v. 12-15: “As through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin ; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned : for until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgressio7i, who is a figure of Him that was to come.”

Universal depravity is recognised as a fact throughout the Old Testament, but no explanation of it is offered. There appear to be only two possible ones. Either, as the Pelagians asserted, it results from the fact that all

^Compare the similar use of “standeth” in the Second Collect at Mattins : “in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life.”

men follow Adam’s example, and sin ” after the likeness of his transgression,” or there is a ” fault ” in the inherited nature which makes sinning easy and natural. Jewish writings outside the Canon show us that though there was no consistent doctrine among the Jews on the subject, yet some among them were feeling their way towards the position laid down by S. Paul, and were inclined to hold that universal sin was due to the fact that the fall of Adam had permanently affected his descendants.^ And on this point the teaching of the New Testament is quite clear. The passage cited above is decisive as to the apostle’s view, and conclusive against the Pelagian theory, while the whole line of argument in the early chapters of the Epistle to the Romans tends to establish the fact that Adam’s sin had a far-reaching effect upon mankind, that through it sin gained an entrance into the world and that all his descendants inherited a tendency to sin.^

See Wisd. ii. 23 seq. ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] ; 4 Ezra ill. 7, 21 seq, ; Apoc. Banich xvii. 3, xxiii. 4 ; and cf. Edersheira, Jesus the Messiah^ vol. i. p. 165 seq.f and Sanday and Headlam On the Eomans, p. 136 seq.

2 The question may be raised how far is the Church’s doctrine on this subject, and S. Paul’s teaching in particular, affected by “critical” views of the Old Testament, and the belief that in Gen. i.-iii. we have a symbolical representation of spiritual truths rather than a literal history. On this subject a valuable letter will be found in the Life and Letters of F. J. A. H<yrt^ vol. ii. p. 329, and reference may also be made to Sanday and Headlam On the Eomaris, p. 146, where it is pointed out that the narrative in Genesis is ” the typical and summary representation of a series of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half calcined bones can ever reproduce for us. In some way or other, as far back as history goes, and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human race this mysterious seed of sin, which, like other characteristics of the human race, is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong, we can

It may be added, that the conclusion which has forced itself upon the minds of theologians as an inference from the statements of Holy Scripture, that there is a taint in the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, is in remarkable accordance with the teaching of secular philosophers and poets,^ and is but the theological expression of the doctrine which has been not discovered, but formulated by modern science under the name of heredity.

(c) Original i^hteoumess. — Having set aside the Pelagian heresy, the Article proceeds with its account of original sin, and lays down that it is ” the fault and

corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from

but vaguely speculate. Whatever it was, we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative— the recognition of the Divine will, the act of disobedience to the will so recognised, the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedience, and we may add, perhaps, though here we get into a region of surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part in us, the soul, through righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are naturally and inevitably summed up as a group of single incidents. Their essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive beliefs we may safely remember that “a thousand years in the sight of God are but as one day.” … It would be absurd to expect the language of modem science in the prophet who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the sacred books of the Hebrews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelligence and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abundantly justified, then the application which S. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He, too, expresses truth through symbols ; and in the days when Wore""* P wit symbols his teaching may be obsolete, but not

original righteousness.” What, then, was this

” original righteousness ” from which man is ” very far gone ” ? Following out the indications on the subject that may be gathered from Scripture, ancient writers have generally described it as being partly natural, partly supernatural, — natural in that it proceeded from free will and the power of choice, supernatural in that certain special gifts and graces in addition to free will were required for its exercise.^ Adam could not have had concupiscence or lust, i.e. the direct inclination to evil which is now the incentive to sin in our nature, for he was made ” in the image of God,” and was ” very good.” On the other hand, as he was in a state of trial, there must have been something in him which sin could take hold of — a starting-point for temptation. To protect him from yielding, it is thought that he must have ” had by his created disposition a pleasure in goodness, and that pleasure naturally preserved him in obedience without the need of express effort.”^ This natural pleasure in goodness, which is practically equivalent to an implanted virtuous character, is what has been called

• See the quotations in Bishop Bull’s famous discourse “On the State of Man before the Fall” IVorks, ii. p. 52 seq.). Bull concludes that “the meaning of the question [whether the original righteousness of the first man was supernatural], if it signify anything to any considerable purpose, is clearly this, whether Adam in the state of integrity needed a supernatural principle or power in order to the performing of such a righteousness as through the gracious acceptance of God should have been available to an eternal and celestial life and happiness. And the question being thus stated, ought to be held in the affirmative, if the consentient determination of the Church of God may be allowed its due weight in the balance of our judgments.” “There is a sense, indeed,” he adds, “wherein we may safely acknowledge the original righteousness oi the first man to have been natural, and it is this, that he received the principle of that righteousness a naiivitate sua, from his nativity, in his very creation, and together with his nature” Op. cit. p. 131). Reference should also be made to S. Thomas, Sumr,ui Theologian, !”, Q. xciv. seq.

by divines the donum supematurcde. It may be best understood by regarding it as a supernatural bias towards good, so that the natural tendency of man was to do what was right in consequence of this Divinely ordered inclination of his will in that direction. ” This implanted rectitude,” it may be added, ” or good habit it was which made the first sin of man so heinous, and caused that distinction between it and all the other sins which have been committed in the world. For the first sin was the only sin which was committed against and in spite of a settled bias of nature towards good ; all the other sins which have been committed since have been committed in accordance with a natural bias towards evil. There was therefore a perversity in the first sin altogether peculiar to it, and such as made it a sin sui genei’is,** ^

In view of modem theories of development, it may be added that there is nothing whatever in Holy Scripture to make us think that man was in his unfalleu condition perfect. Innocent he is distinctly represented as being. His state is one of primitive simplicity. But this is all. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account to lead us to imagine that he was in a high state of civilisation or of intellectual greatness. Scripture gives no countenance to the view that ” an Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam”; and more than one of the early Fathers denies that Adam was created ” perfect ” (reXeto?).^

• Thus Theophilus of Antioch (180) says that God placed Adam in Paradise 5(doi)s air) d<fopfiTj TpoKOTijs 6tus avdvuy Kal riXeios yeydfievoSj ir.T.X., Ad AiUolyc. ii. 24 ; while Clement of Alexandria directly raises the question whether Adam was formed perfect or incomplete riXeioi ij dreXiJs), and answers that he “was not made perfect in respect to his constitution, but in a fit condition to receive virtue” Stromata, VI, xii. 96), “where,” as Bishop Bull says, “he plainly enough teacheth that

(d) The effect of the Fall. — If the condition of man in his primitive condition before he had actually sinned was as it has been described above, what, it will be asked, was the effect of the Fall? Concerning this there have been various views held, differing in regard to the extent of the depravity actually inherited by all men.

(i.) The Greek Fathers generally, and the earlier Latin ones as well, laid no great stress on the Fall, and the most that can be said is that — so far as they have any definite teaching on the subject at all — they hold that it involved the loss of the supernatural bias of the will towards good, but nothing more. Man was left with a fundamentally sound nature, with no direct bias in one direction or the other. Thus on this view “original 8in ” is nothing more than a loss of higher goodness ; a state of defect rather than of positive sin; a privatio rather than a depravatio natures.

(ii.) Augustine and his followers in the controversy with the Pelagians dealt fully with the subject, and drew out more thoroughly than had yet been done the teaching of Scripture, showing therefrom that the Fall involved something more than only the withdrawal of the supernatural gifts, and left man with a corrupt nature, a direct bias towards evil. ” The will,” says Mozley, ” according to the earlier school was not substantially affected by the Fall… . But in Augustine’s scheme the will itself was disabled at the Fall ; and not only certain impulses to it withdrawn, its power of

Adam >\as from the beginning not indeed made perfect, but yet endowed with the capacity whereby he might arrive to perfect virtue. ” See the whole passage {IFarks, ii. p. 72), and cf. Lux MuTidi, p. 535: “All that we are led to believe is that the historical development of man has not been the development simply as God meant it. It has been tainted throughout its whole fabric by an element of moral disorder, of human vrilfulness. ”

choice was gone, and man was unable not only to rise above a defective goodness, but to avoid positive sin. He was thenceforth, prior to the operation of grace, in a state of necessity on the side of evil, a slave to the devil and to his own inordinate lusts.” ^

(iii.) In later days, many of the schoolmen, and after them the Koman divines of the sixteenth century, were content to regard original sin in a somewhat milder light than this, and to view it rather as a ” privatio ” than as a state of positive defect. Aquinas, however, after speaking of it as […] originalis justitiae,” terms it ” inordinata dispositio, languor naturae,” and freely admits that it is more than a mere ” privatio.” 2 But the Council of Trent, following Scotus, regards it mainly as ” the loss of holiness and righteousness “;3 and Bellarmine distinctly teaches that it is only the result of the withdrawal of the supernatural gift.*

(iv.) On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists have generally maintained an entire depravation of human nature, so that man is only inclined to evil ; and they have sometimes used such strong and exaggerated language on the corruption of man*s nature, as to suggest that since the Fall the image of God is wholly

2 ‘*Habetprivationem originalis justitia et cum hoc inordinatam dispositionem partium animae, unde non est privatio pura sed et qusedam habitus corruptus,” Summa, l””^ 2’« Q. Ixxxi.

=» Decree concerning original sin, Session V. (June 17, 1546).

[…]

obliterated, and the nature of man no better than that of the evil spirits. Thus the ” Westminster Confession ” says of our first parents : ” By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” ^

To which of these views thus briefly enumerated, it may be fairly asked, does the Anglican Article incline ? It clearly takes a darker view than that of the Greek Fathers, and of the Koman Church as represented by the Council of Trent. Original sin is more than a ” privatio.” It is a “depravatio naturae.” It <’ deserves God’s wrath and damnation.” Such language can only he used of something positive, not simply of a withdrawal of supernatural grace. But, on the other hand, strong as the language of the Article is, it falls very far short of that of the ” Westminster Confession,” and of Calvinists in general. ” Quam longissime ” in the Latin Article, if pressed, might perhaps be taken to indicate agreement with the Calvinist notion of a total loss of original

[…]

righteousness ; but if so, the English ” very far gone ” would appear strangely inadequate. Moreover, there is a significjant silence about any imputation of Adam’s sin (a prominent feature in later Calvinistic teaching) ; and that the Article is seriously defective from a Calvinistic point of view, is conclusively shown by the suggested emendations of the Assembly of Divines in 1643. They were not satisfied with it as it stood, but wished to insert a reference to the imputation of Adam’s sin, and to materially strengthen the language of the Article, substituting ” wholly deprived of ” for ” very far gone from,” and insisting that man “is of his own nature only inclined to evil.”^

This being so, we need have no hesitation in interpreting the Latin by the English, and may rest content with the statement that man is ” very far gone from original righteousness.” So much is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. Not to lay too much stress on the language of the Psalmist, ” Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. li. 5), or on the question of Job, ” Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? ” (Job xiv. 4), we notice that all through Scripture man is regarded as by nature corrupt. ” The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. viii. 21); “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually ” (vi 6) ; ” The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. xvii. 9). So also in the New Testament: ” I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. vii. 18). “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be ; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. viii. 7). But, on the

other hand, there are passages which no less clearly indicate that, in spite of this universal depravity, the ” image of God,” in which man was originally created, still remains since the Fall, and therefore it cannot be true to say that he is ” wholly deprived of ” his original righteousness. Thus in Gen. ix. 6 the law, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” is based on the fact that ” in the image of God made He man.” In 1 Cor. xi. 7, S. Paul speaks of man as ” the image and glory of God,” while S. James says that men are ” made after the likeness of God ” (iii. 9).

It may then be fairly concluded that on this subject the Church of England is in the main content to follow the teaching of Augustine : only, however, in the main, for there are statements which Augustine was led to make in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians to which we are most certainly not called upon to subscribe. To mention one point only. Augustine asserted that as a fact infants and others dying unbaptized meet with the punishment of hell.^ Article IX. is careful only to state that original sin ” deserves God’s wrath and damnation,” — a statement which follows naturally from the view taken of it as something positive, involving a real taint and disorder of the nature, but which falls short of expressing any opinion on the further question whether it actually meets with that which it deserves.^

2 See on this point a striking letter of the late Dean Church, Life and Letters f p. 248. ’* The /ac< of what is meant by original sin is as mysterious and inexplicable as the origin of evil, but it is obviously as much a fact. There is a fault and vice in the race, which, given time, as surely develops into actual sin as our physical constitution, given at birth, does into sickness and physical death. It is of this inherited sin in our nature, looked upon in the abstract and without reference to concrete cases, that I suppose the Article speaks. How can we suppose that such a nature looks in God’s eyes according to the standard of perfect right-

righteousness ; but if so, the English ” very far gone ” would appear strangely inadequate. Moreover, there is a significant silence about any imputation of Adam’s sin (a prominent feature in later Calvinistic teaching) ; and that the Article is seriously defective from a Calvinistic point of view, is conclusively shown by the suggested emendations of the Assembly of Divines in 1643. They were not satisfied with it as it stood, but wished to insert a reference to the imputation of Adam’s sin, and to materially strengthen the language of the Article, substituting ” wholly deprived of ” for ” very far gone from,” and insisting that man “is of his own nature only inclined to evil.” ^

This being so, we need have no hesitation in interpreting the Latin by the English, and may rest content with the statement that man is ” very far gone from original righteousness.” So much is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. Not to lay too much stress on the language of the Psalmist, ” Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. li. 5), or on the question of Job, ” Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? ” (Job xiv. 4), we notice that all through Scripture man is regarded as by nature corrupt. ” The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. viii 21); “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually ” (vi 5) ; ” The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. xvii. 9). So also in the New Testament: ” I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. vii. 18). “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be ; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. viii. 7). But, on the

other hand, there are passages which no less clearly indicate that, in spite of this universal depravity, the ” image of God,” in which man was originally created, still remains since the Fall, and therefore it cannot be true to say that he is ” wholly deprived of ” his original righteousness. Thus in Gen. ix. 6 the law, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” is based on the fact that ” in the image of God made He man.” In 1 Cor. xi. 7, S. Paul speaks of man as ” the image and glory of God,” while S. James says that men are ” made after the likeness of God ” (iii. 9).

It may then be fairly concluded that on this subject the Church of England is in tlie main content to follow the teaching of Augustine : only, however, in the main, for there are statements which Augustine was led to make in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians to which we are most certainly not called upon to subscribe. To mention one point only. Augustine asserted that as a fact infants and others dying unbaptized meet with the punishment of hell.^ Article IX. is careful only to state that original sin “deserves God’s wrath and damnation,” — a statement which follows naturally from the view taken of it as something positive, involving a real taint and disorder of the nature, but which falls short of expressing any opinion on the further question whether it actually meets with that which it deserves.^

[…]

2 See on this point a striking letter of the late Dean Church, Life and Letters^ p. 248. ’* The /ac< of what is meant by original sin is as mysterious and inexplicable as the origin of evil, but it is obviously as much a fact. There is a fault and vice in the race, which, given time, as surely develops into actual sin as our physical constitution, given at birth, does into sickness and physical death. It is of this inherited sin in our nature, looked upon in the abstract and without reference to concrete cases, that I suppose the Article speaks. How can we suppose that such a nature looks in God’s eyes according to the standard of perfect right-

it

As an illustration of this, reference may be made to the careful reticence of the note at the end of the Baptismal Service in the Book of Common Prayer. ” It is certain by God’s word that children which are baptized, <lying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” Nothing whatever is said of what happens in the case of those who die unbaptized, and the reticence is evidently designed; for the note in question was copied almost verbatim from the “Institution of a Christian Man” (1537), which proceeded to say “and else not”^ The

eousness which we also suppose to be God’s standard and law. Does it satisfy that standard ? Can He look with neutrality on its divergence from His perfect standard? What is His moral judgment of it as a subject for moral judgment ? What He may do to cure it, to pardon it, to make allowances for it in known or unknown ways, is another matter, about which His known attributes of mercy alone may reassure us ; but the question is. How does He look upon this fact of our nature in itself ^ that without exception it has this strong efficacious germ of evil within it, of which He sees all the possibilities and all the consequences ? Can He look on it, even in germ, with complacency or indiflference ? Must He not judge it and condemn it as in itself because evil, deserving condemnation ? I cannot see what other answer can be given but one, and this is what the Article says. But all this settles nothing about the actual case of unbaptized infants, any more than the general necessity of believing the gospel settles anything as to the actual case of heathens who have never heard of the gospel. If, without fear, we leave them to the merciful dispensations, unrcvealed to us, of Him who is their Father, though they do not know Him, much more may we leave infants who have never exercised will or reason. But in both cases we are obliged by facts and Scripture to acknowledge sinfulness and sin. In Christians, and those who may know of the gospel, this is cured, relieved, taken away, by known means which He has given us. In those who, by no fault of their own, are out of His family and Church, we cannot doubt, both from what we know of Him and from what He has told us, that He will provide what is necessary. But still there is the sinfulness and the sin ; and as sin, qtid sin, we can only suppose that He looks on it with displeasure, and condemns it. I don’t see that the Article, which is only treating of sin and sinfulness, and not of its remedy or God’s love, does more than express what must be God’s judgment on all sin, even in germ. How He deals with it is a separate matter.”

\

omission of these three words is highly significant ; and it may be added that, though the work possesses no authority, yet the Beformatio Legum Ucclesiasticarum may be appealed to as an historical witness that by the time of the reign of Edward vi. leading Anglican divines had come to see that while salvation must be denied to those who despise or reject baptism, yet in the case of children (at least of Christian parents) dying unbaptized through no fault of their own, there is room for good hope.^

II. The effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin,

In considering the effect of holy baptism in the removal of original sin, it must be remembered that there are two evils attaching to all sin, viz. the guilt, which needs pardon and forgiveness, and the power, which needs overcoming and driving out. On the view taken by the English Church, that what we call ” original sin ” is something more than a loss of higher goodness, being a germ of real evil, this is true of it as of all other sin. It has its guilt, which makes us ” children of wrath ” ; *

» De H^resihus, c. 18 : “lUorum etiam impia videri debet scrupulosa superstitio, qui Dei gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum tantopere cum sacraraentorum elementis colligant, ut plane affirment nullum Christianorum infantem aetemam salutem esse consecuturum, qui prius a morte fuerit occupatus, quam ad baptismum adduci potuerit : quod longe secus habere judicamus. Salus enim illis solum adimitur, qui sacrum hunc baptismi fontem contemnunt, aut superbia quadam ab eo, vel contumacia resiliunt; quae importunitas cum in puerorum aetatem non cadat, nihil contra salutem illorum authoritate Scripturarum decerni potest, immo contra cum illos communis promissio pueros in se comprehendat, optima nobis spes de illorum salute concipienda est.” See also Hooker, Ecd, Polity Bk. V. c. Ix. § 6. ^’

’ Compare the description in the Church Catechism of the ** inward and spiritual grace” in baptism. “A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness ; for being by nature bom in sin, and the children ofiorath, we are hereby made the children of grace.” The expression ** children of wrath ” is Biblical, and comes from Eph. ii. 3, riKva dpyiji.

’}

and it has its power, which, in the form of concupiscence, draws us in the direction of evil. In baptism the guilt

is pardoned. There is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized (“Renatis et creden-

tibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio ”),^ a statement for which ample support may be found in Holy Scripture (see Acts ii. 38, xxiL 16, etc.), and which will be further illustrated under Article XXVIL* But the power of sin, that appetite for corrupt pleasure which is the incentive to sin in us stUl remains.^ This infection

of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerate (etiam in renatis), whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek (fp6vrjtia aapKo:, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God. This is unhappily a truth of universal experience, for which scriptural proof is scarcely needed. All history and the facts of each man’s own experience combine in testifying to the existence of the old nature even after baptism and the reception of Divine grace. The phrase <//oi/4a <rap/eo?, and the account given in the Article of this “lust of the flesh,” is based on Rom. viiL 6, 7 : “For the mind of the flesh* (to <fp6vrjfia t9 aapKo’;) is death;

1 It should be noticed (1) that reyiatis in the Latin of the Article corre-spends to “are baptized ” in the English, thus marking the close connection between regeneration and baptism ; and (2) that there is nothing in the English corresponding to propter Christum in the Latin.

2 The stetement of the Article may be further illustrated from the Baptismal Offices in the Book of Common Prayer, in which remission of sins is throughout regarded as one of the blessings granted in baptism to infants as well as to those of riper years.

<The Vulgate translates this phrase by prudeniia in ver. 6, and mpientia camia in ver. 7. The Geneva Version has ” vnadom of the

but the mind of the spirit is life and peace ; because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.”

Ii

III. The Character of Concupiscence.

There remains the question. What is the character of this concupiscence which, as all agree, remains even in the regenerate? Is it, before it positively breaks out into definite acts of sin, to be regarded as itself ” true and proper sin,” or is it merely to be reckoned as “an mcentive to sin, arising from sin and inclining to it ” ? The question was keenly debated in the sixteenth century, the Church of Rome and the followers of Calvin returning diametrically opposite answers to it. The Eoman view of concupiscence is given in the decrees of the Council of Trent, at the fifth session of which the subject was discussed, a.d. 1546, some years, therefore, before the Anglican Article was drawn up. The Tridentine divines in this decree maintain the following positions:—

(L) In baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and ” all that has the true and proper nature of sin ” is taken away (totum id quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet).

(ii) There remains concupiscence, or an incentive to sin, which is left for us to strive against, but cannot injure those who consent not.

(iii.) “This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in the regenerate, but because it

flesh”; but in the Bishops’ Bible there is the following note: ”<ppoyov<n and <pp6¥rjfia, Greek words, do not so much signify wisdom and prudence, as affection, carefulness, and minding of anything.”

K\

. li m

is of sin and inclines to sin ” (quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat).^

This position is quite clear and definite. Concupiscence, though it often leads to sin, is not ” true and proper sin.” Equally definite is the statement of Calvinists on the other side. According to them, conpiscence is “true and proper sin.” So the Gallican Confession of 1561-6 asserts : “We affirm that this fault is truly sin even after baptism ”;^ and in accordance with this, when, in 1 543, the ” Assembly of Divines” attempted to revise the Thirty-nine Articles in the interests of Calvinism, they proposed to substitute “is truly and properly sin”^ for the milder statement of our own Article, which, it must be confessed, is somewhat ambiguous, and wanting in the precision of both the Eoman and the Calvinistic statements.

The apostle doth confess that ooncupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin (rationem

peccati). It is hard to say exactly what this means. The Tridentine phrase ” ratio peccati ” is used, but there is nothing about “true and proper nature”; and the Article leaves us uncertain whether it is intended that we should regard concupiscence as truly sin or not. The ambiguity is in all probability designed;* nor need we regret that we are not called upon to give a more precise account of concupiscence. It is sufficient for us that it is very closely connected with sin, and that, if unchecked, it issues in sin. This is the practical matter,

» Canons of the Council of Trent, Session V. Decree on Original

[…]

Chrittendomy p. 109.

• The Thirteen Articles drawn up in 1538 had, like the Confession of Augsburg, asserted that concupiscence is ” vcre peccatum.” This makes the form of expression employed in our own Article still more noticeable,

and there, with wise moderation, those who drew up this Article were content to leave it.

One other question remains, to which it is not altogether easy to return a clear answer. The Article refers to ” the Apostle ” as saying that concupiscence ” hath of itself the nature of sin.” To what passage or passages is allusion here made ? S. Paul, who is evidently meant by ” the Apostle,” nowhere directly terms concupiscence sin (although the Council of Trent maintains that he does), nor does any phrase corresponding to “ratio peccati ” occur anywhere in Holy Scripture. On the whole, it appears probable that the passages in the mind of those who penned the Article were such as these, Kom. vL 12, vii. 8 ; Gal. v. 16-24, in all of which lust or concupiscence is spoken of as closely connected with sin. Reference may also be made to the teaching of S. James on the same subject : ” Each man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin; and sin, when it is full grown, brbgeth forth death ” (i. 14, 15).

•I

De Libera Arbiirio,

£a est hominis iK)st lapsum Adse conditio, ut scse naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus ad fidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit: Quaro absque gratia Dei, qnie per Christum est, nos prseveuieute, ut velimus, et co-operante dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda, quee Deo grata sint et accepta, nihil valemus.

Notes

• “Item decent quod post lapsum Adae omnes homines secundum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, hoc est sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum, et cum concupiscentia, quodque hie morbus, seu vitium originis vere sit peccatum, damnans et affereus nunc quoque aeternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum. Damnant Pelagianos et alios qui vitium originis negant esse peccatum, et ut extenuent gloriam meriti et beneficiorum Christi disputant hominem propriis viribus rationis coram Deo justificari […] August, art. II. It will be noticed that the Anglican Article is far more guarded and cautious in its statements than this. See below, p. 376.
• See Hard wick. History of the Articles, p. 261.
• Ad SimpHcianum, I. c. i. § 10.
• See on the whole subject Bright’s ArUi- Pelagian TrealiseSj Introd. p. xvi. seq., and Sehaffs History of the Churchy “Niceneand Post-Nicene Christianity.” vol. ii. p. 790 sc^.
• ^L*^^ interesting lecture on this subject in Mozley’s Lectures and other Theological Papers, p. 148 seq.
• Mozley, The Aug^istinian Theory of Predestination, p. 91.
• Mozley, TJie Augustinian Theory of Predestination^ p. 91.
• Op. dt. p. 125. For Augustine’s teaching reference may be made to the Enchiridion, § 10 ; De NcUura et giatia, c. iii. ; and the treatise De Oratia Christi et de Peccato ariginali.
• See Neal’s History of the Puritans^ vol. iii. p. 659, where the Article is given as amended by the Divines.
• De pecccUorum mentis et remissione, I. xxi., II. c. iv. ; of. Bright’i AtUi- Pelagian TrecUiseSy p. xiv, note 4.
• See Neal’s History of the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 559, where the Article is given as amended by the Divines.
• Formularies of Faith, p. 93.
• Compare Augustine, DepecccUorum meritis et remissione, Lib. II. c. iv. : ” Concupiscentia … cum parvulis nascitur, in parvulis baptizatis a reati solvitur, ad agonem relinquitur.”
• Neal, History of the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 660.