Gibson on Article XVI: Of Sin after Baptism

The title of this Article in the first edition of 1553 was De peccato in Spiritum Sanctum (” Of Sin against the Holy Ghost”). This was altered in 1563 into De lapsis post Baptismum (” Of Sin after Baptism ”) ; and at the final revision of 1571 the Latin was made to correspond more closely with the English by the substitution of the present phrase, “De peccato post Baptismum.” In two other expressions in the body of the Article slight changes have also been made. ” Locus pcenitentiaj ” was in 1553 translated in the English version by “place for penitentes,” and “place for penitence” in 1563; “grant of repentance” being inserted in 1571 ; at which time “locus venice” in the last sentence was substituted for “locus pcenitentice”

(In 1553 this had been rendered, as at its first occurrence in the Article,” place for penitentes,” for which ” place of forgiveness” had been inserted in 1563.)

There is a general resemblance between this Article and the twelfth of the Confession of Augsburg, but the verbal similarity is not sufficiently close to justify us in saying that the last-mentioned document was the source of our own Article.^ The two are aimed against the same errors, which consisted in a revival of the views of some in early days concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the impossibility of falling from grace, and the refusal of pardon to those who fall into deadly sin after baptism. These errors are also noticed in the letter of Bishop Hooper, referred to in the last Article. ” A man, they say, who is thus regenerate cannot sin. They add that all hope of pardon is taken away from those who, after having received the Holy Ghost, fall into sin ” ; ^ and further evidence of their existence at the time when the Article was drawn up may be found in the Refommtio Legum Ecclesicisticarum? as well as in the following passage from Calvin’s Institutes.

• ** De poenitentia. De ixpnitentia decent quod lapsis post baptismum contingere possit rcmissio peccatonmi, quocunque tempore cum convertuntur. Et quod ecclesia talibus redeuntibus ad poenitentiam absolutionem impertiri debeat. Constat autem poenitentia proprie his duabus partibus : altera est contritio seu terrores incussi conscientiae agnito jieccato. Altera est fides, qu* concipitur ex evangelio seu absolutione, et credit propter Christum remitti peccata, ct consolatur conscientiam ct ex tcrroribus liberat. Deiude sequi debeut bona opera, qu» sunt fructus poDnitentiae. Damnant Anabaptistas qui negant scmcl justificatos posse amittere Spiritum Sanctum. Item, qui contendunt quibusdam tantam pcrfectionem in hac vita contingere ut peccare non possint. Damnautur et Novatiani qui nolebant absolvere lapsos post baptismum redeuntes ad pccnitentiam. Rejiciuntur et isti qui non docent remissionem peccatorum per fidem contingere, sed jubent nos mereri gratiam per satisfactiones nostras.”

’ R^f. Leg. EccL^ De Hctres. cap. 9 : *• Etiam illi de justificatis perverse

’* Our age also has some of the Anabaptists not very unlike the Novatians. For they pretend that the people of God are regenerated in baptism into a pure and angelical life… . But if any man fail after baptism, they leave nothing to him but the inexorable judgment of God.” 1

Two main subjects appear to require consideration in this Article.

1. The fact that deadly sin is not unpardonable.

2. The possibility of falling from grace.

I. The fad that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable.

(a) Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable.

The view of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is here rejected, appears to have been first propounded by Origen in the third century ,2 and was revived in the sixteenth by some among the Anabaptists. A brief examination of the passages of the New Testament which speak of the sin which ” hath never forgiveness ” will

sentiunt, qui credunt illos postquam justi semel facti sunt, in pecca* turn non posse incidere, ant si forte quicquam eorum faciunt, qwe Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro pcccatis non accipere. Quibus opinione contrarii, sed impietate pares sunt, qui quodcunque peccatum mortale, quod post baptismum a nobis susceptum voluntate nostra committitur, illud omne contra Spiritum Sanctum affirmant gestum esse et remitti non posse.”

1 Institutes, IV. i. 23.

show that whatever may be the precise nature of the irremissible sin, there is certainly no ground for maintaining that all deadly sin willingly committed after baptism should be regarded as unpardonable. ^ The passages to be considered fall into two groups : (1) those in the Gospel in which our Lord speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; (2) certain passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of S. John.

1. In regard to the first class of passages (S. Matt. xii 31-37; S. Mark iil 28-30; S. Luke xii. 10), it must be noticed that our Lord never speaks in general terms of ” sin against the Holy Ghost ” as unpardonable. Of one sin, which He terms ” the blasphemy against the Spirit,” He says, “it shall not be forgiven,” and that the man who commits it ” is guilty of an eternal sin ” evoo ia-Tiv aloDvlov dfiapTijfiaTOf;). Now the fact that this sin is thus spoken of as ” blasphemy ” at once marks it out as a sin of a particular class, belonging to sins of the tongue, involving outward expression ; while the occasion on which our Lord warned His hearers against it (” because they said He had an imclean spirit”) throws light on its character. Whether the Pharisees had been actually guilty of it our Lord does not say, but they were clearly in danger of committing it ; and what they were doing was to ascribe manifestly Divine works to Satanic agency. To do this was in a very real sense to ” blaspheme against the Holy Spirit,” by whose agency the works were done. And it is quite clear that, whatever be the precise nature of the irre-

^ That this is the true reading in S. Mark iii. 30 is undoubted. The textus receptua has Kpl<r€<as for afiapnfi/iaTOi. The amended reading has an important bearing on the question of the justice of eternal punishment. If the punishment is “eternal,” is it not because the sin is “eternal”?

missible sin of which our Lord speaks,^ no support whatever can be drawn from His words for the general proposition that deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is unpardonable. It may be noted in passing that the Edwardian Articles did not content themselves, as our own do, with simply denying an erroneous view of the nature of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but proceeded in an additional Article (XVI.) to define its nature more precisely. The Article ran as follows : —

Blasphemy agahist the Holy Ghost,

” Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is, when a man, of malice and stubbornness of mind, doth rail upon the truth of God’s word manifestly perceived, and being enemy thereunto persecuteth the same. And because such be guilty of God’s curse, they entangle themselves with a most grievous and heinous crime, whereupon this kind of sin is called and affirmed of the Lord unpardonable.”

The Article was omitted by Parker in the revision of 1563, probably from an unwillingness to define the nature of this sin, and a desire not to bind the consciences of the clergy to a particular interpretation of a difficult set of passages. And as our present Articles are contented with a purely negative position, denying an erroneous view, but stating nothing positively concerning the character of this ” blasphemy,” there is no need to enter further upon the subject here. Reference may, however, be made in passing to Waterland’s able and convincing sermon upon S. Matt. xii. 31, 32, where

’ Bishop EUicott {Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 187, note 1) deiines it as ”an outward expression of an inward hatred of that which is recognised and felt to be Divine,” and truly says that its irremissible nature depends, “not on the refusal of grace, but on the now lost ability of fulfilling the conditions required for forgiveness.”

the reader will find a full discussion of ” the precise nature of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” ^

2. There remain for consideration certain hard passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of S. John, on which Origen and Theognostus based their views, and which also played an important part in the controversies of the early Church concerning penitential discipline and the restoration of the lapsed to communion, since it was urged by the advocates of strictness that it was contrary to the teaching of these Epistles for the Church to grant reconciliation and pardon to those who had fallen into deadly sin after baptism.^ The passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews are three in number: chs. vi. 4-6, x. 26-29, xiL 15-17.

Ch. vi. 4-6 : ” For as touching those who were once enlightened (aTraf <fxoTLadev7a<i) and tasted yevaa- fjL€i/ov) of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away irapaTreaovrai), it is impossible to renew them again imto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh (or, “the while they crucify,” etc., E.V. marg. avaaTavpovvrasi), and put Him to an open shame (irapaBeifiaTiovTa)”

With regard to this passage it is very important to

• It has not been thought necessary to give in the text any account of these controversies, the principal of which were those with the Montanists and Novatianists and (in later times) the Donatists. The Montanists taught the impossibility of a second repentance, and refused to restore to communion those who liad been guilty of deadly sin. The Novatianists appear to have admitted the possibility of final pardon for such sinners (and possibly the Montanists did not actually deny this), but they denied to the Church the power to grant peace and reconciliation to them. For some account of these controversies, see Schaffs Historif of the Church, •’ Ante-Nicene Christianity,” pp. 196 and 425.

ly

notice the exact words used by the apostolic writer. Those of whom he is speaking (whether or no (fxoTiaOevTaf: be taken definitely of baptism^) had been thoroughly Christianised, and had subsequently apostatised (” and then fell they ”). They are regarded as still opposing themselves to Christianity, still ” crucifying the Son of God afresh,” and ” putting Him to an open shame” (notice the present participles here) ; and while they are doing this it is impossible, says the writer, to renew them again to repentance. But nothing whatever is said of an ” impossibility ” should they cease their opposition to the gospel. Hence, as Bishop Westcott has pointed out, ” the apostasy described is marked, not only by a decisive act, but also by a continuous present attitude, a hostile relation to Christ Himself and to belief in Christ ; and thus there is no question of the abstract efficacy of the means of grace provided through the ordinances of the Church. The state of the men themselves is such as to preclude their application.” ^

Ch. X. 26-29: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses : of how much surer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? ”

’ ’ 4wTij’eii’ and wTt<r/ios were commonly applied to Itaptism from the time of Justin Apol. i. 61, 65 ; cf. Dial. c. 122) downwards. And the Syrian versions give this sense here.” — Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 148.

• The Epistle to the Hchreics, additional note on vi. 1-8, [». Idfi.

Here again it will be sufficient to note that the tense is present. ” It must be observed that the sacrifice of Christ is finally rejected, and sin persisted in (d/jLapTa- vovTCDv). The writer does not set limits to the efficacy of Christ’s work for the penitent.” ^

Ch. xii. 15-17: “Looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God ; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled ; lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright. For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with tears.”

It will be observed that the difficulty of this passage is far less when rendered (as above) as it is in the Revised Version. Readers of the Authorised Version might naturally think that the writer denied that Esau found repentance, or a place of repentance. A reference to the Greek makes it clear that what Esau sought was not a ” place of repentance ” tottov fieravola), for the pronoun ” it ” is feminine (avrp). Grammatically it may refer either to ” repentance ” iieravolasi) or to ” the blessing ” (evXoylav) ; but there can be little room for doubt that the Revisers are right in referring it to the latter (cf. Gen. xxvii 38). If this is so there is no ground for maintaining, on the strength of this passage, that a man may seek diligently to find repentance and fail to obtain it. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that when Esau “sought the blessing diligently with tears,” his probation, so far as his birthright was concerned, was already over, for the award had been made, and the blessing actually given to another. His ” repentance,” therefore, is parallel to nothing on this side of the

•f

grave. Thus, while all these passages are full of solemn warning on the terrible consequences of sin, and the danger of putting off repentance too late, it will be seen that when carefully considered they give no countenance to the opinion which is condemned in the Article as to the irremissible character of deadly sin willingly committed after baptism.

The same is true of the remaining passage in the First Epistle of S. John (1 John v. 16, 17): “If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death : not concerning this do I say that he should make request. All unrighteousness is sin : there is a sin not unto death.”

On this passage is based the distinction ordinarily drawn in the Church between ” deadly ” and ” venial ” sins. It will be noticed, however, that S. John does not define ” sin unto death,” nor, indeed, does he absolutely forbid intercession for it. He is dealing, as Bishop Westcott points out, with the prayers of Christians for Christians ; and after pointing out the efficacy of their prayers for one another, he indicates that there is a sin, the natural issue of which is death (tt/jo? ddvarov). This excludes men from the Christian society, and he cannot enjoin prayer for it^ But there is no reason whatever for maintaining that the Apostle denies the possibility of forgiveness for such deadly sin, if the sin is forsaken and repented of.

{h) Wherefore the grant of repentance {locus pcenitc7itice) is not to be denied to such as fall

into sin after baptism. The statement of the Article would seem to follow naturally from the position just maintained. And it may be supported by a refer-

• See Bishop Westcott’s “additional note’* in Tlie EpisUcs of S. John, \i. 199.

ence to S. Paul’s treatment of the incestuous man at Corinth. Here was a man who had been guilty of a most deadly sin, and who had been by the Apostle’s direction excluded from the fellowship of the faithful, and delivered unto Satan” (1 Cor. v. 4, 5). But this ” deliverance unto Satan ” did not necessarily involve his final condemnation. On the contrary, its object is described as ” the destruction of the flesh, that the spiHt may he saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” Moreover, if 2 Cor. ii. 5-1 1 refers (as is commonly thought) to the same case, then the Apostle distinctly contemplates the restoration of the offender upon his repentance to the communion of the Church, and charges the Corinthians to forgive him and reinstate him. And if for such a sinner a ” locus poenitentiae ” was allowed, it is difficult to think that in other cases the Church would be right in refusing it. Consequently the Church has always resisted the demands made by some in the interests of purity that those who have fallen into a grievous sin should be excluded from communion for the remainder of their lives, and has never shrunk from proclaiming God’s forgiveness to all penitent sinners. In some of the early controversies in regard to penitential discipline a distinction was drawn between these two things, namely, God’s willingness finally to forgive those who have been guilty of deadly sin after baptism, and the power of the Church to grant “pardon” to such. It was sometimes urged, as by the Novatianifits,^ that though God might in His

infinite mercy forgive such at the last, yet the Church had no commission from Him to declare His forgiveness, and therefore could hold out no “locus pcenitentife” to the lapsed, although she might urge them to pray that they might finally receive pardon, and find a ” place of forgiveness ” (locus veniae). It would appear that this distinction was present to the EUzabethan revisers of the Articles (if not to their original compilers), for after saying that ” the grant of repentance (locus pcenitenti*) is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism,” the Article adds at the close the statement that

(c) They are to be condemned which … deny the place of forgiYeness (locus veniae) to

such as truly repent. — That some distinction of meaning between the two phrases locus poenitentise and locus venire (and their English equivalents) is intended, is shown by the fact already noted, that originally the same phrase stood in both clauses of the Article.^ The diversity of phraseology subsequently introduced must have had some definite intention, and it was in all probability that which has just been indicated. Thus the Article as a whole implies, not only that God is willing to forgive penitent sinners, but, further, that the Church has a commission to declare His pardon, and to grant reconciliation where there is true repentance.

The phrase ” locus pcsnitentise ” is almost a technical

Pudicitia, c. xix., where he says that there are some sins which admit of no pardon, namely, murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication. “For these Christ will no longer plead” (Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus). He says, however, in the same chapter, of a grievous sinner: “Let her indeed repent, but iu order to put an end to her adultery, not, however, in prospect of restoration to communion. For this wUl be a repentance (pcenitentia) which we too acknowledge to be due much more than you do ; but concerning pardon {venia), we reserve it to God.” * See above, p. 444.

one for an opportunity of changing a former decision, so that the consequences no longer follow. It occurs in Latin writers, e.g. 4 Esdr. ix. 12, as well as the Jurists ^ and others, being used in Pliny’s famous letter to Trajan on the Christians, where he expresses a hope of their improvement if a ” locus poenitentije ” is granted to them.2 The Greek equivalent, totto? /xerai/ota?, is also found in Wisd. xii. 10, as well as in early Chiistian writers,^ by whom it was probably taken from Heb. xii. 17, where the Vulgate renders it by ” locus poenitentije.” « Locus veniae ” does not seem to be of such frequent occurrence. It is used, however, by Tertullian in De Pudicitia, c. xviii.

II. The Possibility of Falling from Grace. On this subject the teaching of the Article is clear and

decided. After we have receiYed the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin as long as they live here.

These statements are primarily aimed against the teaching of the Anabaptists, who maintained that a man who is regenerate cannot sin. Such teaching is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. The Lord’s Prayer, which was surely meant to be a prayer to be used by all men, recognises the need of forgiveness for all ; and the language of the Apostles addressed to believers throughout the Epistles assumes that all have sinned and come

• Bishop Westcott (on Heb. xii. 17) quotes Ulpian, ap. Carp. J. C. Die XL. tit. vii. 3, § 13. x- , 6-

« Pliny, Epp. x. 97.

V\

short of the glory of God. There are, however, some words in the First Epistle of S. John to which the Anabaptists and others who maintained a theory of perfection could point in support of the statement that the regenerate cannot sin, namely, 1 John iii. 6,9: ” Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not : whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him… . Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because His seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God” (cf. also c. v. 18: “Whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not ”). Strong as these words are, it must be remembered that the writer who uses them has already in an earlier passage of the same Epistle said emphatically : ” If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ; but if we confess our sins. He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in ua” These words are perfectly general, and seem quite incompatible with the notion that S. John teaches that any man can claim total immunity from sin and the possibility of sinning here on earth. How, then, is the later passage, previously cited, to be understood ? It must certainly be qualified by what has already been said by the writer, and therefore we need feel no hesitation in pressing the present tenses, ovk aiiaprdveiy afiapriav ov voiety ov ivvarat afuiprdveiVy and saying that they refer to a habit and practice rather than to isolated acts. It is true that the believer often falls into sin, yet sin is not the ruling principle of his life, and in so far as he is really born of God and abides in Him, “he sinneth not” If it be urged that thus to interpret the words is to explain away the language of Scripture, it may fairly be replied that ” the only possible escape from such modification is

by asserting the possibility of sinlessness, which contradicts i. 8, or else by asserting that rume of us have seen God, and none of us are children of God, which contradicts the whole Epistle ” ; ^ and as there are no other passages of Scripture which give any countenance to the theory of sinless perfection in this life, the Article is perfectly justified in its assertions, that ” after we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin,” and that ” they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin so long as they Hve here.”

It will be noticed that after laying down that we may depart from grace, the Article says further, “We may arise again and amend our lives.” It is important to notice that the word is may, not must, for herein lies a marked difference between the teaching of the Church of England and the Calvinistic tenet of ” indefectible grace ” ; for Calvin and his followers, while rejecting the Anabaptist notion that the ” regenerate ” cannot sin, nevertheless taught that those who were once made Christ’s own, though they might fall away for a time, could not permanently and finally lose His grace.^ Thus the statement of our Article has always been a stumbling-block to them. So early as 1572 the authors of the Second

’ See the fifth and sixth of the ” Lambeth Articles.” “A true, living, and justifying faith—the Spirit of God sanctifying— is not extinguished, does not fall away, does not vanish in the elect either totally or finally.” “A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed with justifying faith, is certain by the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, aud his eternal salvation through Christ.”

ti

Admonition to Parliament were forced to admit that ” the book of the articles of Christian religion speaketh very dangerously of falling from grace, which is to be reformed because it savoureth too much of error.” And at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 a suggestion was made that after the statement that we ” may depart from grace given,” there should be added the qualifying words, “yet neither totally nor finally.”^ Happily no notice was taken of these criticisms, and the sober statement of the Article remained unqualified. The whole tenor of Scripture implies the possibility of falling from grace ; and if S. Paul had reason to fear lest, when he had preached to others, he himself ” should be rejected ” or […] 1 Cor. ix. 27, it is hard to understand how men can be found to deny the same possibility in the case of others. The subject is closely connected with the whole doctrine of Predestination, and will therefore come before us again in connection with the Seventeenth Article, where something will be said on the Calvinistic system in general. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the matter more fully here.

Notes

• See vol. i. p. 22.
• See Athanasius, Ep. ad, Serap. iv. § 10, where this view (which he also attributes to Theognostus) is considered and rejected. The view of Athanasius himself appears to be that whereas “blasphemy against the Sou of Man ” was to blaspheme against Him before the full revelation of His Divinity was made, “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” is to “ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil,” i.e. to blaspheme against Him after His eternal Godhead has been manifested. Cf. OrcUiones cmtra Ariaiws, I. § 50.
• Waterland, Works, vol. v. Sermon xxviii. See also Muller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, Bk. V. vol. ii. p. 475 (Eng. tr.).
• Westcott, The Ejnstle to thc Hebrews, p. 327.
• That this was the position maintained by Novatian seems to be shown by the words of S. Cyprian in Ep. Iv. § 28 (a/, li.), where he describes him as urging the lapsed to weep and mourn, and do all that is necessary for peace, though “peace ” was refused them. Eusebius speaks as if all hope of salvation was denied to them (J7. E. VI. xliii.). In this, however, he was probably mistaken as regards Novatian and his followers, though the statement would perhaps be true of the Montanists. See Tertullian, De
• Kg. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. I. vil ; Tatian, c. Griee. xv.; Const. Apost. 11. xxxviii., V. xix.
• Farrar, Early Days of ChristianUy, vol. ii. p. 434. See also Westcott, Epistles of S. John, p. 101. ** Sinneth not. The commentary on this phrase is found in ch. i. 6. It describes a character, ’ a prevailing habit,’ and not primarily an act. Each separate sinful act does as such interrupt the fellowship ; and yet so far as it is foreign to the character of the man, and removed from him (ii. 1), it leaves his character unchanged.” Reference may also be made to Dr. Plummer’s note in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 124.
• See vol. i. p. 53 seq.