Gibson on Article XV: Of Christ alone without Sin

This Article dates from 1553, since which time it has undergone no alteration. Its language has not been traced to any earlier source. Three principal subjects are treated of in it, viz. —

1. Christ’s perfect humanity and sinlessness.

2. His atonement.

3. Our sinfulness.

Since all these subjects have been previously considered in the Articles (1 and 2 in Article II., and 3 in Articles IX. and X.), it is not altogether easy to see the exact object with which the one before us was added to the series. Hardwick ^ and Bishop Harold

» Pp. 100, 402. 439

Browne ^ both appear to hold that it was aimed against the belief in the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. This does not, however, appear probable for the following reasons : —

1. The Blessed Virgin is not mentioned in the Article. As a rule the Articles are perfectly direct and plam spoken in their condemnation of erroneous views, and if their compilers had had this doctrine in view it is most unlikely that they would have contented themselves with so indirect a condemnation of it.

2. Much of the Article is on this hypothesis unnecessary. Why was it needful to say so much about Christ’s perfect humanity and atonement in order to condemn the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ?

3. The expression in the Article is, ” all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ,” etc., and it would be perfectly open to a Romanist to hold that the Blessed Virgin was never baptized, and that, therefore, her case is not considered in the Article at all ! ^

4. At the time when the Articles were drawn up there was no need to condemn the doctrine, as it was not held de fide in the Roman Church.^

A far more probable view is that this Article (like the following one) was aimed against the errors of some

I.

I I f

• This is actually the view taken by Francis a Sancta Clara (DaveujK)rt), a Franciscan, who wrote a Commentary on the Articles in 1633, endeavouring to reconcile them with the Tridentiue decrees. See his Paraphrastka Expositio, p. 20.

among the Anabaptists. On this hypothesis every word in it tells, for among these fanatics were some who revived docetic notions of our Lord’s humanity, some who denied His atonement and asserted His sinfulness, and others who had the hardihood to maintain that the regenerate could not sin. Nowhere do we find a clearer statement of their errors, or a better commentary on this and the following Article, than in the letter of Bishop Hooper, which has been already quoted in the first volume of this work.^ Similarly, in the Reformatio Legum Ucclesiasticarum we meet with a condemnation of the very same errors.^ And in the light of these passages we may safely conclude that the real object of the Article was to condemn in plain and direct terms the heresies of those who denied our Lord’s true humanity, sinlessness, and atonement, while maintaining their own entire freedom from sin.

Since the doctrines of our Lord’s human nature and of His atonement were considered under Article II., and that of human depravity came before us in connection

“Cap. 8. De pcrfectione justificatorum, et de operibus supererogationis. Illorum etiam superbia legibus nostris est frangenda, qui tantam vitfe perfectionem hominibus justificatis attribuunt, quantam nee imbecillitas nostra natune fert, nee quisquam sibi prieter Christum sumere potest ; nimirum ut omnis jieccati sint exi;)ertes, si mentem ad recte piequc vivcndum instituerint Et banc volunt absolutam morum perfectionem in banc praesentem vitam cadere, cum debilis ipsa sit, et fragilis, et ad omues virtutis et officii ruinas pr«ceps, etc.

‘*Cap. 9. De casu justificatorum et peceato in Spiritum Sanctum, Etiam illi de justificatis perverse sentiunt, qui credunt illos, postquam juKti semel facti sunt, in peccatum non posse incidere, aut si forte quic-quam eorum faciunt, qua Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere.”

with Article IX., and will require to be noticed under Article XVI.. it is unnecessary to say more upon them here. The only point touched on in this Article on which nothing has so far been said directly, is that of our Lord’s sinlessness. On this matter the evidence of Scripture is clear and precise, (a) Not only is there no hint or indication of sin in any word or action attributed to Him, but His challenge to the Jews, ” Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” (S. John viii. 46), and His declaration on the eve of His Passion, ” the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me ” (S. John xiv. 30), are clearly the utterances of one who was absolutely free from all taint of sin.^ (6) Reference should also be made to the definite statements of the apostles. S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews all agree in directly asserting His sinlessness.

” Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” 1 Pet. ii. 22. “Him who knew no sin. He made to be sm on our behalf,” 2 Cor. v. 21.^ ” He was manifested to take away sins, and in Him is no sin,” 1 John iii 5. “One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” Heb. iv. 15. ” Such an high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens ; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people : for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself,” Heb. vii. 26, 27.

Such passages as these are amply sufficient to justify

[…]

the statement of the Article that Christ in the truth

of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly 1 void, both in His flesh and in His spirit … and sin (as S. John saith) was not in Him.’

• lAt.prorsus. Clearly = thoroughly, completely, unreservedly. It is so used in Piers the Plowman^ “Theishul be clensed clereliche and wasshen of her sinnes in ray prisoun purgatorie ” (B. xviii. 389), and later in Fitzherbert’s ‘Surveyinge’ (a.d. 1525): ”Lette a man make a castell, towre, or any maner of newe buildings and finysshe it clerely.’* Other instances of a similar use of the word are given in Murray’s New English Dietionart/t s.v.

%’

Notes

• Articles f p. 347.
• The doctrine was first defiiutelij discussed by the schoolmen, the Franciscans upholding it, the Dominicans (including Aquinas) denying it (see Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, vol. ii. p. 260). The Council of Trent managed to remain neutral and to avoiti a condemnation of either party, merely stating that it was not intended to include the Blessed Virgin in the decree on original sin (Session V.). It was reserved for Po^ie Pius IX. to declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be an article of faith ‘i>y his Bull of December 9, 1854.
• See vol. i. p. 22.
• De Hatrea. cap. 6. **De duabus naturis Christi… . Alii eum sic Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de coelo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uterum lapso, quod tanquam in transitu per Mariam quasi per Canalem aut fistulam prseterfluxerit.
• Cf. liiddon’s Bampton Lectures^ p. 28.
• On the subject of our Lord’s absolute sinlessness (the “non posse peccare” as well as “posse non peccare”), and its compatibility with liability to real temptation, see an article on “Our Lord’s Human Example ” in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xvi. p. 282 ; Gore’s Bampton Lectures^ p. 165 ; Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, Appendix ; Mill’s Sermons on the Temptation, p. 24 ; and R. L. Ottley’s Doctrine of the Incarnation vol. ii. p. 293.