Hey on Article XV: Of Christ alone without Sin

11. It is scarcely to the purpose to mention, that the Jews calumniated our Lord, as a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber, as a sabbath-breaker and a seditious person ; because the character of Christ, with which we are concerned, is that which results from a view of his whole conduct.

Some very ancient Christians have been accused of speaking slightly at least, if not flanderously, of their Lord and Saviour ; but, as we have not any of their writings, and those who accuse them,

DD 2 wrote

a1 oo — -

Fs ——

• , ’

ö

: af

ns.

————” x

• <->

w_

= *

• • • _ - — 5 — “TC —

418 BOOK iv. AR r. xv. SECT. 111.

wrote some time after them, generally speaking, and not in the most candid and dispassionate man- ner, I will not dwell upon opinions so faintly described and imperfectly proved. The best ac- count I know of them is in Larduer’s posthumous work, —We have before * said, that the Sociniaus look upon Christ as peccable.

The passage quoted by Yelchman from Irenens, is to our purpole; its original meaning must have been to oppose the Docetæ. — Tertullian’s passage is rather curious, and particularizes the right kind of sins; allowances being made for difference of mau- ners in different ages and countries: it leads us to the second subjef, the finfulness of man.

III. We pals on to the Pelagians.— In conse- quence of their slight notions of original fin and divine grace, when the orthodox exclaimed, how | sinful men are! they extolled the freedom of man’s | will, and maintained, © that a man may be with- out sin, © keep God’s commandments easily®, if he will” —What they urged in defence of their opinion was so specious, that it perplexed the | mind of Marcelliuus, a Nobleman of Carthage, who wrote to Augustin on the subject. Not that this was the only subject, on which he consulted him ; we have three books, written by Augustin, De Peccatorum meritis et remissione, et de Bap- tismo parvulorum, addressed to Marcellinus*® ; the second is to our present purpose, and of that I wilt read you the contents; and perhaps a passage or two. Augustin speaks on the fame subject in other works; and Jerom in his writings against the

Pelagians.

’ ® From Priestley? s Letters, page 101.

b Walls Inf, Bapt. page 166, 4to, from Jerom. See the original (in Jerom, or) in Append, to tenth Vol. Op. Aug. page 55,—where’are many things on this subject, as “well as on other parts of Pelagianism.

© Aug. Opera, Vol. 10. beginning.—Argument of 2d Book.

• —— r - — —

— . — wn — ͤ A

BOOK IV. ART. xv. SECT, IV. 419

Pelagians.—Leporius, whose recantation we have“, had leaned towards the Pelagians. They repre- sented the orthodox as saying, in effect, when they called all men certainly sinful, that the commands of God ae impossible; which the Papiits charge upon Luther, as they do the doctrine, “ that in- vincible ignorance is not excuseable;“ a doctrine, I fancy, connected with this Article; as making a * of doing wrong aclions, however unavoidable,

a species of Sin. | IV. The council of Trent, in eighteenth Canon of Session vi. declares against imposibility of keep- ing God’s commands; though in the tenth Canon it says, that men are not formally righteous. The twenty-fifth Canon 1s against saying, that Christians sin venially, at least, even in their good works: but then it is supposed, that eternal punishment is held to be merited by such venial fin, of itself.— The account of the Virgin Mary may be noticed; the Romanists reckon her? void of fin; Bishop Burnet thinks, the scriptural expressions rather im- ply some imperfection in her :—fome have gone. so | ar,

4 See Sirmond’s collection, or Opuscula varia. — Genna- dius’s memorandum prefixed, 1s more useful than the Recantation itself; which is declamatory, and about several more important things: this Recantation is mentioned in Jortin’s 2d Disserta- tion, page 88.

In the Appendix to the 1oth Tom. of Op. Augustin, p. 86, there is a short quotation from this Recantation; from whence it seems, that Leporius’s error had been rather on the fir? subject of this Article, making Christ man in the most extended sense saying, he bore the suffering as a mere man; without divine help of any kind. This was indeed imply ing also, that a com- mon man does his difficult duties without divine help.— In Sirmond’s Edit. this passage is page 20.

Trent, Session g, end of decree about original fin, —Rhem, Test. on Col. i. 24. |

PD 3

420 BOOK 1V. v. far, we are® told, as to say, that St. Francis per-

formed every command of God; but as Dupin“

makes no ohjection to this Article, we will say no more of the Church of Rome. |

v. The two ideas of sinless perfection, which are most to our purpose, may as well be mentioned without regard to time; I mean those of the ies and Antinomians, So much has been said of both these sets of Christians before“, that I may confine myself to the ways, in which they have conceived themselves free from sin. The mystics became free from fin by the intimate ou of their fouls with God and Jesus Christ ; the Antinomians, by having all their fins /aid upon Christ.— The mystical enthu- siast does not purposely do any thing which we should call wrong; the Antinomian does things wrong in themselves, but they are right because he, a true Christian, does them; insomuch, that if he was to steal, the crime commonly called theft, would in him lose its criminal nature. But let us say a word or two about each of these, sepa- rately.

Men may be my/ics in different degrees; J have been told, from respectable authority, that the Ar- minian Methodists, known better as disciples of Fohn Wesley, have a class, or rank, or small society, which is called he select band ; the members of which are supposed to be in a state of perfection: they do not indeed like to join the word © finlefs” with perfection; they like belt to say, they are perfect

| a in

8 Rogers on the Article.

b Mosheim, octavo, Vol. 6, page 55.

i Luther considered the Papists and Anabaptistt, as the Pela- gians of his age; and might be too warm against them. And our Article might be intended to soften matters. See Life of Ridley, page 344, 345: referred to in Art. x111. Sect. v.

& Book 111. Chap. xv. Sect. x1. is partly on Mysticism; tar

the Antinomians, see Art. vii, Sect. 111. i 1 John iv. 18.

in Love.” Baxter mentions some Enthusiasts, who conceive “ a certain height of holiness,” —< a state of finless perfection, attainable © in this life.“ He speaks of Origen and Macarius amongst the an- cients, and of “ fome later Papists,” as havin favoured the conception. The Famili/s, before” mentioned, seem to have gone deep into it“.

VI. Antiuomians have held, that Christ, having fulfilled the law for them, has taken away Sin : — their name of Libertines? was from their using car- nal liberty, I think, as well as from their doctrine having that tendency; and probably something of this sort has occasioned some of the ancients to be accused of holding all actions to be indifferenta.— Baxter says, it is * the known opinion of the Anti- nomians*,” that “ God seeth no fin in his people; the guilt falls on Christ.” —These he calls after- wards * ©** Libertine Doctrines, as synonymous to Antinomian.—In Dickinson’s* Letters, an Anti- nomian *reasoner says, „If he (a Christian) be united to Christ, and interested in his righte- oulneis, he is perfectly righteous; and if he be perfectly righteous, he cannot be sinful.” — Picart mentions ® some Moravian Auabaptists, who

omitted

m Pamphlet on Perseverance, 3d opinion; p. 4. & 5.

n Art, V11. Sect. 111. & II.

o Baxter, Ib. conclusion.— Fuller’s Church History, gth Book, p. 113. — My/tici/m was an object of attention to the Reformers : dee Art. v11. Sect. 111. referring to Art, xix. of 1552, and Reform. Legum de Hæresibus, cap. 3,

P Art, x. Sect. xx. and Art. x11. Sect. 1. and Art. x111. Sect. v. 1 Lardner under Basilides, Sect. xiii. Trent, Session vi. Canon 19. |

r On Perseverance, page 12. |

Page 40. t Page 350. | 4

u Quoted by Rutherforth, Charges, p. 55 See also Art. vi Sect. 111. and vii. | Ee

DD 4

omitted this part of the Lord’s Prayer, For- give us our trespasses,” &c. because being rege- nerated, they esteemed themselves to be without fin. 55

The“ Brethren and Sisters of the free Spirit, as described by Mosheim *, seem to have the nature of both Mystics and Antinomians.

When we spoke of hardening”, &c. we quoted some expressions about God being the Author of all thoughts.

vii. From History, we proceed, as usual, to Explanation.

The title of 1552 is somewhat different from ours. * No man 1s without Sin but Christ alone.” It turns our thoughts to the sinfulness of mar, which seems the proper subject of the Article; and at the same time it shews us the ground of the quel- tion, whether Christ was not, in any way, sinful ; namely, his having the nature of mh.

viii. It seems proper to observe how much of our Article is taken out of Scripture, Christ 54 was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted,” may be looked upon as taken from Heb. ii 17. and iv. 15, united. -* The Lamb without spot,“ is from 1 Pet. i. 19,—* Who, by the sacrifice of himself, once made,” is from Heb. ix. 26. and other passages.— Should take away the fins of the world,” is from John 1. 29. —* and fin was not in him,” is from 1 John iii. 5. —“ baptized and born again in Christ,” may be conceived as taken from John iii. 3, & 5. joined. © Offend in many things,” is from James iii. 2.—and the rest from 1 John 1. 8.

t * Cent. 13. 2, 5, 9, 10, &c. Y Art. x. Sect. xx. Leporiuss error seems to have turned on something con-

nected with this. — See page 19, 20 of his Recantation, Ed. Sirmond.

[…] —

BOOK IV. IX—xII. 423

Ix. It might be doubred whether our Article does, in strictness, affirm that Christ was not peccable x it certainly affirms, that he did not fn; which seems to amount to much the same: if fin had been in his propensities, he would © seemingly” have com- mitted it sometimes, as we do, so many are the openings to fin; but this we cannot thoroughly understand.

x. All we therest,” implies the human nature of Christ: 1t 1s calling him one of the human species, though distinguishing him as alone free from sin.

XI. © Baptized and born again,” means, hav-

ing gone through external forms of admission into Christianity, and having the suitable disposition ; fo that Baptism * shall have its proper effect.

X11. The only thing remaining, of explana- tion, is settling the kind of /ins here spoken of, which all Chrittians have in common. Dr. Overal* says, © Articulus xv. de quotidianis et communibus peccatis tractat, quæ omnibus regeneratis com- munia sunt; in quibus offendimus omnes, falva tamen gratia, nec ab ea recedentes.” - The begin- ning of the sixteenth Article, about every deadly sin—il/lingly committed, does give countenance to this opinion; so does the text from St. John, as well as that from James, which Bishop Overal has quoted; we deceive ourselves “ if we say, that

we have no sin;“ none whatever. In the original, James’s

2 Sometimes the outward ceremony, sometimes some privilege is used to express admission into Christianity ; which of these shall be preferred, depends on circumstances : here it seems best to use both expressions.

d Short account of the five Points according to the Church of England; in a Vol. with Fur prædgstinatus.— Dr. Overal was a moderate man : Regius Professor at Cambridge, Dean of St, Paul’s, Bishop of Litchfield; then of Norwich, in 1618, seem- ingly for one year only,—Not in Biographia Britannica.

—

= Pa. — ao […] —

IF D 3» A 2 J _ - - — 24 2 _ ; w N — = IBF Q - Wy * — L _ co * — - - . […] - * K z —— - —s— — 2 — - 5 bd - — — 1 4 es IR ons” ” r % . W 2 . > GS mw cy […] K 8 py * — 2 […] CR err “CO G _— — PY […] - = E o — 4 — * 3 — — - --- — — - […] —

wa»

2 Ys — Ow * — 8 […] aA 2 — - * - 4 - — mY 2 & - hy | =

CY —

DE… £ — 4 -

—

—

—— O […] ——

— - VT. […] 2 “Tn —— - - — —

MF — * —

424 BOOK lv. XIV,

James” s expression is, w Yay wratstten ararrgg ’ wreaiw is to stumble, make zrips, mistakes.—Yet people fin in degrees different without end ; there- fore we must not exclude more heinous fins from the meaning of the Article, though it will extend ro those run into by the e of Christians, and may be chiefly meant of them.—I before said, that, when Luther 1s charged with holding that invincible ignorance is not excuscable,” the charge seems to have relation to the present Article; and some expres- fions in Jerom’s Dialogue with a Pelagiar, * , leem to shew, that when the orthodox fathers spoke of all Christians as sinful, they meant, that the best Christians fall short of perfect, or consummate vir- tue, in {ome thing or other.

XIII. We come now to our Provf. — There seem to be only 1wo propositions remaining to be proved.

1. Christ was void of fin. 2. No Christian is wholly void of fin.

Other propotitions are certainly contained in the Article ; but they have either been proved be- fore, or are themselves brought from Scripture as proofs.

xiv. Christ was void of fin.

This has been, incidentally, proved before*. It is also proved in this Article, as has already appeared, under the Explanation.— I may add a text or two. II. hit. 3—5.—Luke i. 35.— John xiv. 30.— Acts itt. 14.—2 Cor. v. 21.—Heb. vii. 26.—In the Article, we have a proof of the Purity of Christ from the hype of him, the spotless Lamb: from

his

© Sect. 111.

[…]

© Append. to Art x1. Sect. xx.

his being a sacrifice for the fins of others, which seems to imply, that he himself did not want a redeemer. The difficulty of his being perfectly pure arises from his being real man; but he was not conceived and born; in fin; he was conceived by the Holy Ghost; and, by that wonderful expe- client, he became free from what we call original fin; how far that contributed towards his being free from actual fin, we know not. Yet if, as“ before observed, he was peccable, he was very likely to have fallen into sin. xv. No man is void of fin.

Texts to this purpose have appeared under the ninth Article: but the proposition is sufficiently proved in the Article itselt. It may not be amis to add, 1 Tim. i. 15. with regard to St. Paul, and Luke v. 8.— Gal. ii. 11. with regard to Str. Peter : if we look round for other authorities, we must take care not to infringe upon other Articles; not even on the sixteenth: — What has been alread said, in describing Christian good works, about their imperfefions*, applies here directly.

xv I. Other texts will appear in chectious; to which therefore we may now proceed. ;

Against the perfect purity of the character of Christ, might it not be objected, that, when a person calls him * Good Master,” he disclaims the title of good, and says, why callest thou * me good? there is none good but one, that is God.“ — This seems intended by Christ to rebuke the man for flattery; how good soever we see Christ to have been, when we review his whole lite; the per- son rebuked could not fo clearly fee him to be

| goud.

Of Leporius, see Set, 111. & vii, 5 Psalm li. 5. h Sect. 1x.

i Art. x11, Sect. vi. — See also Homily on the Misery of Man, 2d part, page 12, 8v0.

• Matt. xix. 17.

426 BOOK 1V. ART, xv. SECT, XVII, XVIII,

good. But the reply might convey, and be in- tended to convey, a different idea to those, who knew the whole history of Christ : it might mean, if Jam good, strictly speaking, and at the same

time a real man; it 1s owing to the union of the divine with the human nature, in my person.— Our Saviour probably meant, moreover, in re- buking the person who called him good, to rebuke the general practice amongst the Jews of giving flattering titles to the Rabbis”.

xvII. With regard to the universal sinfulness of man, it has been objected, that certain persons are spoken of in Scripture as bameless”. It seems. sufficient to reply, that, whatever inculpatus means in any Latin, or apewrros in any Greek classic, “ blameless” should be understood to mean in En- lish; that is, I take it, a person not to be complained

| of; one whom you would not think of blaming, but rather of commending. It is common to say,

• © this is a man of an irreproachable character; —“ a most wnexceptionable man.“ We have before“ ex- plained good works, on principles of fact and pro- bability, on which all language is built. What Jerom saysꝰ may amount to much the same; some persons are called blameless, * non quod omni vitio careant, {ed ex majori parte virtutum;“ which gives the character. | |

It might not be 1mproper to look back to the

first objection under the twelfth Article, Se. xx111. xXxVIII. Let us now take, as an objection, the Pelagian dilemma?. Aut possibilia Deus mandata

dedit, Macknight, on the place, may be worth reading. m Luke i. 6. * Art. xit. Se. vi. © I happen to take this from Augustin’s works, Vol. x. page 51. — Appendix (the Epistle to Ctesiphon).— Augustin’s answer to this objection may be seen in the Corpus or Syntagma Confes- sionum, page 116, (first paging) Col. 2. | ? Jerom’s Dialogue, between Atticus and Cretobolus ;— Append. as above, page 56.

BOOK IV. XVI11, 427

dedit, aut impossibilia. Si possibilia, in nostrà est potestate ea facere si volumns : fi impossibilia, non

in hoc rei sumus, fi non facimus quod implere non

possumus.” My answer would be, each command of God is possible to be performed, but (espe- cially considering our depraved propensities, and our standing in need of divine assistance,) the commands of God are so numerous, and each of them admits of so many degrees of nicety in the principles, and of exertion, in the manner of per- formance, that it is extremely improbable, that, when we come to look back upon our conduct, we shall not perceive something wrong, in some respect or other ; so improbable 1s this, that, in common language, it is called impofible ; there is no expecta- tion in the mind, that it will happen: and in this sense our Lord himself says, It is inpasible but

that offences will come.“ — We have it in our

power, however, to do what is sufficient for our Salvation; that is, in every thing, to aim at doing well; - the impossibility here spoken of does not appear at all whilst we are resolving upon duty; not beforehand; the impossibility appears only on review; on calculation, or retrospe&. Such im- possibility does not take away the universality of our a of obedience; it does not put us on any footing different from those, who believe they can do their whole duty; it does not prevent our being considered, and punished, as guilty for every command, which we neglect, or violate. God sees all the variety of degrees, in which men en- deavour to perform perfect obedience ; and he can

reward

4 Luke xvii. 1.— See Art. x11. Sect. 1x. and passages there mentioned. ;

r This answers Sess. vi, Canon 25, of the Acts of the Council of Trent.

2 \

—

— =,

• 4 -.- * - — SD - 5 ——

=4? © >

SI

—

j pl 3. : = N | „ 4 Ta ©7805 kN. E \ [1 C | EY Bi.

— & A as

428 BOOK IV. AR r. xv. SECT. XIX.

reward or punish according to circumstances, be they ever so complicated. _

We should now take notice of an objection on the part of the mystic, and of one on the part of the Antinomian.

x1x., The mystic may urge, 1 John iii. 9, — „ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit fin ;” - which he might strengthen by 1 John iv. 17, 18; about perfect Love of God casting out fear :—my answer would be, this is a description of the Christian charafer, but not of any Christian : it is theory, not fact; it is what Christians must continually exert themselves to attain, but what no Christian has attained. — And the same distinction is applicable to other passages of Scripture : when we find ourselves exhorted to be perfect, &c. (though the word may sometimes be used for becoming Chri/- tians, compare Phil. iii. 12, and iii. 15.), we must consider the exhortation as comparative, and as pointing to ideal perfection; when we read descriptions of the faultiness of man, we must understand them as descriptions of fact. It also occurs in common life: Sir Joshua Reynolds has written much about ideal perfection, but he never confounds it with actual attainments. There 1s no one fault, which a Painter must voluntarily give into; yet there is no painter, who will not ind, on looking back, that he has run 1nto faults :, and how absurd would any man be thought, who said, that he was a regu- lar professed painter, and therefore could not paint wrongly.— The Scripture does not make a good conscience to depend on finless perfection, but on being “ in 4 things willing to live honestly*,”— And, in ordinary life, a man 1s called a good Christian, notwithstanding his being obliged to cover ©, with Charity, © the multitude of fins,”

| | xx. What

s Heb, xiii. 18. t 1 Pet. iv. 8.

xx. What has just now been addressed to the mystic, may apply to the Antinomian.—Perhaps he might add such texts as Rom. viii. 1, 2.—Rom. viii. 33.—1 Cor. i. 30. —or Eph. v. 2).— Of the first some account was given under the ninth Arti- cle”, which declares that text to be not inconsistent with concupiscence, though concupiscence has the nature of fin. The rest seem to belong to the Church of Christ as a collective Body*, and the last, to that body in a state of ideal perfection.

Rom. viii. 33, &c. seems to correspond to the mention of some form of Government, or politi- cal Constitution ; or some Colony, or scheme for promoting the welfare of some large body of men?. — Both Jews and Gentiles are admitted into Chris- tianity ; what a glorious situation | people fo situ- ated can come to no real arm: who shall accuse them? that God who justifies them ? Christ who laid down his life for them ?—how 1dle must be the fears of people so protected! what are tem- porary persecutions to them ? all powers, of any real importance, are on their fide this, at least, is the situation, which providence deigns to allot them: they may perversely neglect its advantages, or abuse them; be that upon their own heads. This is all expressed, or implied, in the passage; what a pity that folly should make anything out of such noble reasoning inconsistent with rational Religion and Virtue !

XX1. In this last place, this question may be proposed ; if all men are sinful, shall none be

happy * hereafter ? © the ”_ of Sin* is Death.” — Nothing

v Art. ix. Sect. xxx11t. * Art. 1x, Sect. xxx. & XXX11. Y See Locke on Rom. viii 33, &c.

Acts of the Council of Trent, Canon 25 of Sess. 6, 2 Rom, vi. 23.

430 BOOK IV. ART, xv. SECT. XXIT.

Nothing has been proved here, which is incon- sistent with the declaration of the twelfth Article, that Christian works, though imperfect in them- selves, shall be accepted in Christ, God, on ac- count of his Son, may reward men with happiness inestimable, if they have been habitually “ will. ing in all things to live honestly ;” though he may see in them fome failings and infirmities.— If any difficulty remained after this, it might be leflened by what was said under the thir- teenth * Article, about Christian virtues having the Nature of Sin“.

xx11, Having given a direct proof of our Article, and farther illustrated the meaning of it

by answering a few objections, I come to the

Application.

As to Forms of Asent; we might, in natural religion, declare, that there is a character of ideal perfection, to which no one has ever in fact attained; and to which it is very unlikely, that any one ever will attain ; so unlikely, that men, who speak from their feelings, would {peak of such attainments as impossible. A Christian might express the sense of our Article, thus :

« Christ was a real man, yet free from Sin: the seeming inconsistency is removed by attending to his supernatural conception ; and his purity 1s proved not only by words of Scripture, but by the types which prefigured him, and by his being a victim for the fins of other men.”

| Other

b Art, x111. Sect. xvi. © One is apt to think Horace’s candour about poetry natural, and to hope for the same about actions. Verdùm ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis Ostendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parùm cavit natura. AR. POET, 351.

BOOK IV. ART. xv. SECT, xxIII. 431

• Other men, though become Christians, may be considered as, in some degree or other, sinful : nay it is to be expected, that they always will be so. Not but the ideal character of the Christian is pure; and no man must allow himself in any sin whatever; yet such are our propensities, such the number of openings to sin; that, amongst the best, the fact answers, and is likely to answer, to the general declaration of Scripture; that all Believers frequently fumble in their Christian course ; and that it would be hypocrisy, or self-deceit, for any one to say, that he has no fin whatsoever.”

xxIII. Mutual concessions need not occasion much difficulty between orthodox and Pelagians, as they seem to differ very little. Pelagians own, that no man it free from fin ; Orthodox only say, they cannot be, as speaking the result of experience. Orthodox say, that Christians may have only venial fins ; Pelagians say, venial fins are“ no fins at all.—This will apply to more modern Pelagians, Romanists, Anabaptists.

As to Myftics and Antinomians, I fear we must not attempt any rational compromise with them: they come under the observations, made under the seventh Article, about illiterate sets. What Bax- ter says, may be applied to them; „they are obscure […] that shun the clear dis- closure of their minds*:”—Dr. Balguy’s expres- sions seem also applicable to them“; - Unfortu- nately the parties concerned are most of them out

of

© Nicholls on the Article. f Art. V11. Sect. 111.

On Perseverance, p. 4. b Page 106, Disc. 6.

vot. 111. E E

e

432 BOOK iv. Ak r. XV. SECT. XXIV,

of the reach of rational conviction. They who appeal to their senses, instead of their understand- ings, are only to be pitied, not confuted.” —Yet the notions of such must be examined, for the sake of those, whom they disturb and perplex.

XX1V. I will not dwell upon Improvements.— Perhaps more attention to the difference between

the ideal Christian, and the real one, might have its use *,

i Something might be here , urged about the con/iftency of Christ’s renee Frey, = © the virgin’s womb,” with his —_

and about the improbability of Fishermen forming ”_ a plan, or drawing such a character.

Notes

• Dupin’s Compend. Hist. Cent. 16. Chap. 6. page 16. and Berti’s compendium, Vol. 2. p. 153, 154+ 7
• Cretebolus says, ©* non dico hominem ef sine peccato, quod tibi forsitan impossibile videatur, sed pee esse fi velit; aliud est enim e, alind posse; e quærit exemplum—(so that he never pretended to know an in/tance), poffe ostendit imperii veritatem. — Page 56. Append. Op. Aug, tom. 10.