Green on Article XV: Of Christ alone without Sin

“ They contend that a man who is reconciled to God is without sin, and free from all stain of concupiscence, and that nothing of the old Adam remains in his nature ; and a man, they say, who is thus regenerate cannot sin” (Original Letters, p. 65).

[…]

“ Illorum etiam superbia legibus nostris est frangenda, qui tan- tam vitae perfectionem hominibus justificatis attribuunt, quantam nec imbecillitas nostrae naturae fert, nec quisquam sibi praeter Christum sumere potest.”

XOI

io2 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

See further the notes on Article XVI.

The compilers of the Article may also have had in view scho¬ lastic teaching with regard to the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) Christ’s true Manhood does not include Participation in Sin.

Christ in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh, and in His spirit.

Christ was perfect man. Sin is not part of human nature, but a fault and corruption of it. In sin, therefore, He had no share (S. John viii. 46, xiv. 30; 2 Cor. v. 2 1 ;

Heb. iv. I 5 ; 1 S. Pet. ii. 22 ; 1 S. John iii. 5).

(2.) The Effect of the Death of the Sinless One.

He came to he the Lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Him¬ self once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in Him. (See S. John i. 29 ; 1 S. Pet. i. 19.)

The fact of our Lord’s sinlessness infuses an element of righteousness (2 Cor. v. 21) and sacrificial power (1 S.

Pet. ii. 22—24; Heb. ix. 14) into His death. If Christ

could have been convicted of one single sin, He would have been disqualified for the altar ; He might, indeed, have died as a martyr and left a noble example, but could not have been accepted as the atoning Sacrifice for sin (Eph. v. 2 ; and cf. 1 S. John iii. 5, the passage quoted in the Article). The Atonement has been already treated in Article II., but we should notice that three points with regard to our Lord’s death are here emphasised : —

(ft) Its expiatory character — Who by sacrifice of Himself … should take away the sins (1 S. John ii. 2 ; iv. 10).

(b) Its unique character ; the Sacrifice of Christ was once made, and cannot be repeated 1 2 (Heb ix. 26).

(c) That it avails for all sin 2 — should take away the sins of the world (1 S. John ii. 2).

If any sins remain unforgiven at last, it will not be

1 Cf. Article XXXI.

2 The sufficiency of Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice for all sin is several times dwelt upon in the Articles. See notes on Articles IX. and XXXI.

because of any defect or shortcoming in Christ’s sacrificial work, but because men have refused to confess and forsake them.

(3.) No other Human Being was, or is, perfectly good.

But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The words of the Article here are taken from S. Jas. iii. 2 and 1 S. John i. 8.

The subject of the sin of the regenerate is further treated in Article XVI., where see notes.

There is no express allusion in the Article to the question of the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, but it is very probable that the compilers, in drawing it up, had in mind current teaching upon the subject. The title of the Article itself, “ Christ alone without Sin,” excludes extravagant doctrine on this point. It would seem to be self-evident that our Lord’s Mother, having been born in the usual way, of human parents, must have shared in the taint of Original Sin. Scripture, indeed, speaks of her as “ highly favoured” or “full of grace”1 (/ce^u/RTco/icViy), and as “ blessed among women ” (S. Luke i. 28, 42, 43, 48 ; xi. 27, 28) ; and it was a pious opinion in early times that the grace of God did work so mightily in her that she was preserved from actual sin.2 Duns Scotus and the Franciscan ‘divines, who followed his lead, began to teach (circ. 1300) her immaculate conception, i.e., her freedom from Original Sin ; and the Council of Trent in its decree on ‘ Original Sin ’ (Session V.) expressly excepts the Blessed Virgin from what is laid down under that head : —

“ Declarat tamen haec ipsa sancta synodus, non esse suae inten- tionis comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virgineni Mariam.”

The “ Immaculate Conception ” of our Lord’s Mother was not, however, declared to be a doctrine of the Catholic Church until 1854, when Pope Pius IX. issued (December 8th) the famous Bull c< Ineffabilis ” : —

“ Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus, doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam virgineni Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis

1 “Gratia plena” is tlie rendering of the Vulgate in S. Luke i. 28, and with this the Syriac V ersion agrees.

2 See S. Augustine, ‘De Natura et Gratia,5 § 42.

fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meri- torum Christi Jesu salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque ideirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.”

Such doctrine of the absolute freedom of the Blessed Virgin from all participation in sin has no foundation in Holy Scripture, and is implicitly repudiated by our Church in this fifteenth Article. Our Reformers at the same time speak of her with that venera¬ tion and respect which is due. See, e.g., the Homily of Re¬ pentance, Part I. p. 564 : —

“Jesus Christ, Who being true and natural God, equal and of one substance with the Father, did at the time appointed take upon Him our frail nature, in the blessed Virgin’s womb, and that of her undefiled substance ; that so He might be a Mediator betwixt God and us, and pacify His wrath.”

Again, in the Homily on Wilful Rebellion, Part II. p. 607, we read : —

“ The obedience of this most noble and most virtuous lady to a foreign and pagan prince doth well teach us, who in comparison to her are most base and vile, what ready obedience we do owe to our natural and gracious Sovereign.”

T