Green on Article IX: Of Original or Birth-sin

The Article is expressly intended to exclude Pelagianism, which had been revived at the time of the Reformation by the Anabaptists.1 In the Article as it stood in 1553 the Anabaptists were also referred to by name, c< ut fabulantur Pelagiani, et hodie Anabaptistae repetunt.”

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

A Short Account of Pelagianism.

Pelagins 2 himself was a monk of British origin. The lax conduct of professing Christians at Rome, who excused their shortcomings upon the ground of the infirmity of human nature, is said to have been the immediate cause of his error ; he assured them that, if they would, they could live perfect lives, and was led to the opposite extreme of attributing too much to unaided human nature. A Council held at Carthage (a.d. 412) condemned Coelestius, a friend and follower of Pelagius, who had been spreading his opinions in the North African Church. The Pelagian tenets condemned by this Council were seven in number : —

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

(ii.) The sin of Adam injured himself only, and not the human race.

(iii.) That the Law had the same effect as the Gospel in sending men to the Kingdom of Heaven.

(iv.) That even before Christ’s coming there had been sinless men.

(v.) That infants when born are in the same state as Adam before his transgression.

(vi.) That all mankind does not die in Adam, or rise in Christ.

(vii.) That unbaptized infants would have eternal life.

A brief consideration will show us that these seven propositions

2 The name Pelagius is thought to be a Grecised form of his native name, Morgan.

yo

are logically connected. Pelagius began by arguing somewhat in this way : ‘We cannot imagine that God would be so foolish as to create man to keep a Law, which yet by the very constitu¬ tion of his nature he cannot keep ; we must therefore conclude that man can keep God’s commandments if he will/ Notice here that the Fall, with its consequences, by which man lost his original power of keeping God’s commandments, is entirely over¬ looked ; we are, according to Pelagius, at birth in the same state in which Adam was before he fell. If we admit this, it follows of course that Adam’s transgression hurt only himself and not the human race. But here a difficulty arises : death has passed upon all men, even upon unconscious infants — does not this fact indicate that all partake in sin ? Pelagius solved the difficulty by denying the connection of death with sin : “ Adam was created mortal, and would have died even if he had not sinned.”

This position has now been reached : — Adam need not have sinned ; we at birth are all of us in the same condition that Adam was in before the Fall ; therefore no man need sin. Pelagius went further, and affirmed that he could mention many who never had sinned. Now comes the important question, “ In virtue of what power were such men sinless ? ” Pelagius said, by the exercise of their own free-will under the guidance of God’s Moral Law ; i.e., in order to attain perfection man needs simply to be told what to do, and he will do it ; he needs no power to enable him to act up to that which his conscience approves. If Moral Teaching thus suffices for man’s need, it follows that the Gospel is in reality no advance upon the Law, but both “ have the same effect in sending men to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

In consequence of the conclusions already arrived at, Pelagius was obliged to take the text, “ As in Adam all die,” in an unrea* sense ; he explained it as meaning, not that all die in Adam, but that all those who do die, die in Adam ; in other words, all men do not sin, but if a man happen to sin, he is following the example of Adam.

Holding these opinions, Pelagius was of course obliged to give up the doctrine of the Church with regard to Baptism. If in¬ fants at birth are sinless, there can be no need of Regeneration. The custom of baptizing infants was, however, retained by him, as a ceremony of dedication to God.

The root of the evil in Pelagius’ system is his totally in¬ adequate conception of the nature of sin. With him cc sin ” is

on]y a name for an act, which, once committed, is over and done with, and leaves no effect behind ; so that human nature, whether in the individual or in the race, is uninfluenced by past sins, and is in the same condition as at the creation of Adam. Universal human experience, however, gives the lie to such theorising. We j know that it is by repeated acts that habits take shape, and that character is formed. The power to be righteous did, indeed, belong to our nature as originally constituted, but Pelagius was wrong in supposing that no act of man can remove that power, and in

confining the need of a special grace over and above natural

endowment to some only of mankind.1

Wo will now consider the Article in detail; it defines —

(i.) The Nature of Original Sin.

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the

Pelagians do vainly talk) hut it is the fault and corruption

of the nature. (See Rom. v. 12—19.)

When we speak of Original Sin we do not mean merely that Adam first set the example of sinning, an example which most men follow (Peccatum originis non est in imita- tione Adami situm) — this was the theory of Pelagius ; but we understand by it a vitium et depravatio naturae. The nature of the race as a whole is faulty and corrupted, owing to the sin of the progenitor.

Cf. what is said in the Reformatio Legum, ‘ De Haere- - sibus,’ Cap. 7 :

“ In labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, dcindo etiam Anabap- tistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarum Scripturarum est, quod pec¬ catum originis in Adamo solo haeserit, et non ad posteros transient, nec ullarn afferat naturae nostrae perversitatem, nisi quod ex Adami delicto propositum sit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandam et usurpandam.”

The Augsburg Confession (Part I. Art. II.) speaks of Original Sin as “ morbus seu vitium originis.”

The Belgic Confession (Art. XY.) gives this defini¬ tion : —

“ Est autem peccatum originis corruptio totius naturae, et vitium haereditarium, quo et ipsi infantes in niatris utero polluti sunt.”

A Calvinist would describe Original Sin as the “ imputa¬ tion ” of Adam’s guilt.1

Cf. Westminster Confession, VI. iii. :

“ They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed.”

In their revision of the ninth Article the Westminster divines inserted a clause in the definition of Original Sin : —

“ Together with his first sin imputed, it is the fault and cor¬ ruption of the nature,” &c.2

(2.) The Extent of Original Sin.

of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam ; (Ps. li. 5.)

Thus our Church emphatically excludes Pelagianism, and affirms that Adam’s sin affected not himself only, but the whole human race.

Cf. Council of Trent, Session V. :

“ Si quis Adae praevaricationem sibi soli et non ejus propagini asserit nocuisse, et acceptam a deo sanctitatem et justitiam, quam perdidit, sibi soli et non nobis etiain eum perdidisse, aut inqui- natum ilium per inobedientiae peccatum mortem et poenas corporis tantum in omne genus humanum transfudisse, non autem et pec¬ catum, quod mors est animae : anathema sit.”

A Socinian would include Jesus Christ among men born in sin ; but our Lord is expressly excluded by the wording of the Article, since He was “ sujpernaturally engendered ” (S. Luke i. 34, 35).

1 It should be remembered, however, that Calvin himself did not teach this.

Cf. Institutes, II. i. 8 :

“ Atque ideo infantes quoque ipsi, dum suam securn damnationem afferant, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti.”

He thus defines Original Sin :

“ Videtur ergo peccatum originate, haereditaria naturae nostrae pravitas et corruptio in omnes animae partes diffusa, quae primum facit reos irae^ Dei, turn etiam opera in nobis profert, quae Scriptura vocat opera carnis.”

2 The text of the Article as revised is given in full in Appendix IV.

(3.) The Result op Original Sin.

whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit ;

The consequence of the Fall is here represented as twofold : —

(a) A Privation , the loss of that life of intimate communion with God which man had before the Fall, with a wide departure from original righteousness1 (Rom. vii. 18).

( b ) A Depravation , the introduction of an element of discord within man himself, the inclination of his nature to evil, so that the lower within him strives against the higher (Gen. viii. 21 ; Gal. v. 17).

The Saxon Confession, like the English Article, sets forth the twofold result of the Fall : —

(a) “ Carentia originalis justitiae.”

(b) Depravatio “quae lapsum secuta est.” (Art. II.)

While Pelagianism denies that there is any result at all, so far as the human race as a whole is concerned, Calvinism, on the other hand, lays such stress on the consequences of the Fall as to hold that every spark of original righteous¬ ness has been extinguished, and the image of God not merely defaced, but utterly blotted out.2

French Confession, Art. IX. :

… “adeo ut ipsius natura sit prorsus corrupta, et spiritu excaecatus, ac corde depravatus, omnem illam integritatem, sine ulla prorsus exceptione, amiserit. Etsi enim nonnullam habet boni et mali discretionem : affirmanms tamen quicquid habet lucis mox fieri tenebras, cum de quaerendo Deo agitur, adeo ut sua intelligentia et ratione nullo modo possit ad eum accedere.”

Scotch Confession, Art. III. :

“ Qua transgressione, quae vulgo dicitur originale peccatum, prorsus deformata est ilia Dei in homine imago.”

1 The expression “original righteousness” is taken from the XIII. Articles, but does not occur in the Augsburg Confessiou. The phrase was used by the Saxon school of Reformers to signify the sinless state of man before the Fall ; we meet with it in the Saxon Confession, and in the definition of Original Sin given by the Formula of Concord : —

… “est privatio concreatae in paradiso justitiae originalis seu imaginis dei, ad quam homo initio in veritate, sanctitate atque justitia creatus fuerat.”

2 In the Institutes (Book II.) Calvin himself speaks of the heavenly image as ‘ obliterated ’ by the Fall, both in Adam and in all his posterity.

K

Westminster Confession, YI. 2 :

“By this sin they (z’.e., our first parents) 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.”

It is evident that the wording of our Article was not strong enough to suit the Westminster divines ; in their revision they altered it thus : —

“Whereby man is wholly deprived of original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined only to evil. ” 1

(4.) The Punishment due to Original Sin.

and therefore, in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. (Eph. ii. 3 ; Rom. v. 18.)

Pelagius and his followers denied that any penalty of Adam’s transgression passes on to his offspring.

In formularies both of the Saxon and Swiss school the penalty attaching to Original Sin is spoken of as ‘ eternal death ’ ; see, e.g. : —

Augsburg Confession, Part I. Art. II. :

“ Docent … quod hie morbus, seu vitium originis, vere sit peccatum, damnans et afferens nunc quoque aeternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum.”

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. VIII. :

… “ merito nostro, irae Dei obnoxii, poenis subjicimur justis : adeoque a Deo abjecti essemus omnes, nisi reduxisset nos Christus liberator. Per mortem itaque intelligimus non tantum corpoream mortem, quae omnibus nobis semel, propter peccata, est obeunda, sed etiam supplicia sempiterna peccatis et corruption! nostrae debita.”

(5.) The Effect of Baptism.

And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated ; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek $p6vr] ga crapKos … is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

Baptism removes all condemnation on account of Original Sin (Rom. viii. 1), but does not remove the effects of the

1 See Appendix IV.

Fall upon our nature (Gal. v. 17), so that there remains, even in the regenerate, the lusting of the flesh against the spirit (Rom. viii. 7), and this ‘ concupiscentia ’ has of itself the nature of sin (Rom. vii. 7).

Cf. what is said in the sixth of the XIII. Articles : —

“ Quia vero infantes nascuntur cum peccato originis, habent opus remissione illius peccati, et illud ita remittitur ut reatus tollatur, licet corruptio naturae seu concupiscentia manet in hac vita, etsi incipit sanari, quia Spiritus Sanctus in ipsis etiam inf antibus est efficax, et eos rnundat.”

To the same effect also Calvin writes in Institutes, IV. xv. 1 1 : —

“ Baptismus quidem promittit nobis submersum esse nostrum Pharaonem, et peccati mortificationem ; non tamen ita ut amplius non sit, aut nobis negotium non facessat ; sed tantum ne superet. Nam quamdiu in hoc carcere corporis nostri clausi degemus, liabitabunt in nobis reliquiae peccati; sed si promissionem in Baptismo nobis a Deo datam, fide tenemus, non dominabuntur nec regnabunt.”

Melanchthon, in Loci Theologici (p. 112), thus states the effect of Baptism : —

“Ideo sic respondemus, in baptismo tolli peccatum, quod ad reatum, seu imputationem attinet, sed manere morbum ipsum.”

Bonner’s words in “ Profitable and Necessary Doctrine ” well express the teaching of, our Church : —

[…]

When we come to the question whether the concupis¬ cence which remains in the baptized is itself properly sin, we find great divergence in the formularies of the Reforma¬ tion period. Those drawn up by the theologians of the

Lutheran and ‘ Reformed ’ bodies agree in affirming that such concupiscence is truly and properly sin ; see, e.cj. : —

Saxon Confession, Art. II. :

[…]

French Confession, Art. XI. :

[…]

Westminster Confession, VI. 5 :

“Both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.” 1

The Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared that

✓

the concupiscence remaining in the baptized is not properly sin. The decree of the Council upon this subject (Session Y.) runs as follows : —

“ Si quis per Jesu Christi gratiam, quae in baptismo confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti negat, aut etiam asserit non toll! totum id, quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud dicit tantum radi aut non imputari, anathema sit, in renatis enim nihil odit Deus… . Manere autem in baptizatis concupis¬ centiam vel fomitem, sancta sy nodus fatetur et sentit, quae cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus, sed utiliter per Christi gratiam repugnantibus non valet. Hanc concupiscentiam, quam aliquando Apostolus peccatum appellat, sancta synodus declarat, ecclesiam catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinat.”

It will be observed that our Article speaks guardedly ; while it differs from the decree of Trent in declaring that the concupis¬ cence which remains in the baptized “ has the nature of sin ” (peccati in sese rationem habet 2), yet it does not go so far as to affirm, with the other Confessions above quoted, that it is truly and properly sin.

[…] NOTEWORTHY EXPRESSIONS IN THIS ARTICLE.

(i.) o-apKog (Rom. viii. 6).

The key to the true meaning of (ftpovruuLa in this phrase is to be found in the use of the cognate verb in the New Testament. Cf. the following passages : —

1 Cf. the text of our Art. IX. as revised by the Westminster assembly of divines, Appendix IV.

2 See the use of the same Latin phrase in Art. XIII.

[…]

In the light of these passages we understand (ppovyga crapKog to signify the directing of the thoughts and energies to the interests of the flesh.

(ii.) An incidental use of language in the Article is doctrinally important, and should not be overlooked. The way in which renatis, which occurs twice in the Latin version, is represented in the one case by “ them that are regenerated ,” and in the other by “ them that are baptized” implies the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

Notes

• See Ridley’s letter quoted above, pp. 23, 24.
• The account here given of Pelagian teaching has been carefully gathered from S. Augustine’s treatment of the Pelagian heresy in his treatises, “De Spiritu et Littera,” “De Natura et Gratia” (which is especially valuable because it contains a review of a lost work by Pelagius), and “De Gestis Pclagii ” (ed. Bright ; Clarendon Press).