Maclear and Williams on Article IX: Of Original or Birth-sin

i. Connection. Having dealt with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and the Rule of the Faith, the Articles pass on to consider in the third group the practical aspects of the Christian Faith, especially as it relates to individuals, and the all-important subject of their salvation.

ii. Origin. The Ninth Article is derived from the

Second Article of the Augsburg Confession of 1530, through the medium of the Thirteen Articles of 15381.

iii. Object. Its object is to oppose a form of mis- belief, which troubled the Church in the Fifth, and was revived by the Anabaptists in the Sixteenth Century. That it refers to the teaching of the latter sectaries is clear from the original wording of the Article in 1553. For, after the words “as the Pelagians do vainly talk,” the following addition was made, “which also the Ana- baptists do nowadays renew.”

iv. The Teaching of Pelagius. As regards the earlier of these forms of misbelief, Pelagius, an Irish2 monk of the fifth century, together with Ccelestius, an ardent disciple, with whom he became acquainted at Rome, propagated the doctrine that

(#) Adam was by nature mortal, and would have died in the course of time, even if he had not sinned3 ;

{b) That every man is born pure, and falls from original righteousness as Adam did, by imi- tating the example which he set ;

2 S. Jerome speaks of him as coming of the Scottish race (habit progtniem ScoticcE gentis ile Britannorum vicinia), which may imply that he was an Irish- man, the Scoti being at that time set- tIed in Ireland. Smith’s Diet. Biog. Article Pelagius. The principal dates connected with him are the follow- ing:— (1^ Birth about A. D. 370; (2) ar- rival at Rome, where he meets Cceles- tius, A.D.401 ; (3) withdraws, in conse- quence of Alaric’s threatened invasion, to Sicily and Hippo in Northern Africa, A.D. 410; (4) present at the Synods of Jerusalem and Diospolis, a.i>. 415; (5) condemned by Pope Zosimus in his

Epislola Trac/oria, A.D. 418.

(c) That Adam did not transmit to his descendants any positive stain of sin in consequence of his fall1.

v. Revived by the Anabaptists. These opinions, though strenuously opposed at the time by S. Augustine, and condemned at the Council of Carthage A.D. 418, and by the Council of Ephesus A.D. 431, were revived by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century and pushed to great extremes.

vi. Analysis. The Article, keeping as closely as possible to the words of Scripture,

(i) defines (a) what original sin is not, {b) what it is; (a) What it is not : —

It does not consist in the mere imitation2 of Adam, in doing the same as he did, as though he had been a copy or example ;

(/;) What it is :—

“It is the fault and corruption3 of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the

[…]

2 According to S. Augustine Pela- gius affirmed “In Adam peccasse om- nes, non propter peccatum nascendi origine contractum, sed propter imi- tationem.” De Nat.et Grat.‘w.io, Sin, according to this theory, can only be an imitation of Adam’s transgression, not a congenital depravity of nature; but if so, argues S. Augustine, why

not regard Abel as “caput omnium justorum, quia primus in hominibus justus fuit”? ut supr.

offspring of Adam1,” and the result of it is threefold : —

(a) “Man is very far2 gone from original

righteousness ” ; (/3) He is “of his own nature inclined to evil” ;

(7) ” The flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and condemnation.” (ii) Having thus laid down its definition of original sin, the Article next affirms that this ” fault or corruption remains even in those that are re- generated, and though there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”

vii. Original Righteousness. It is admitted on all sides that man, as he originally came forth from the Hands of God, was in body and soul more perfect than any men have been since. But the Churches differ as regards the nature of that primitive perfection. The Roman, Greek, and Reformed Churches all hold that it consisted not only (1) in a state of innocence and freedom from bodily death,

1 Thus excepting the Incarnation of Scripture that the image of God in our Lord from coming under this man was not entirely obliterated by category, for He was born without the Fall, comp. Gen. ix. 6, 1 Cor. xi. any intervention of man in a way 7. While it is true that “experience wholly miraculous of the Holy Ghost shews us that by ourselves we cannot and the Virgin Mary. Comp. S. Aug. reach it,” it is equally true that “we De Pecc. Orig. xli. 47. see with increasing clearness, when we

Articles, p. 396. It is evident from

but (2) in an habitual wisdom and holiness, with immor- tality of the body. But at this point there comes in a difference of view. The Roman divines regard these advantages as divine gifts of Grace, which were super- added1 to the natural endowments of man, reason and freewill. The Reformed Churches regard them as natural to and increated in man2.

viii. Man’s Fall. But whatever was the nature of man’s original condition, his fall is a matter of history, and involved not only himself, but all his progeny, so that men have ever since been born into the world without those prerogatives and endowments which the first human pair possessed before that event took place. The way, however, in which the sin of Adam wrought out its consequences upon mankind, is differently described. While the Catholic Church as a body never taught that the sin of Adam hurt himself alone and not his descendants,

(i) The Greek and Roman Churches consider the effects of the Fall as simply privative, and con- sisting in

(a) The loss of the supernatural gifts of original holiness and immortality ;

(y3) The enfeebling of the natural powers of man for good3 ;

2 “Integritas ilia, cum qua primus Elevatee, or Status Naturtc Protoparen- homo conditus fuit et sine qua post turn, in which there is added Grace, ejus lapsum homines omnes nascuntur, Righteousness, and destination for the non fuit naturalis ejus conditio, sed Beatific Vision.

supernaturalis evectio.” Bellarmine 3 Of course it is not implied that

(/e Gratia pnmi horn. 2. Roman theo- this view in any way takes from the

logians distinguish three stages (1) heinousness of sin as sin, sin being

Status Natural Puree, a condition in essentially a matter not of results, but

which man lacks alike the empire of of “disobedience to a Will which I am

reason over his lower passions and the meant to obey.” Maurice, Epistles of

presence of Grace; (2) Status Natum S. John, p. 47.

(ii) The Reformed Churches on the other hand hold that the results, instead of being simply privative, were actual and positive, that

(a) With the loss of original righteousness there ensued a corruption, more or less entire, of human nature in its spiritual aspect, inclining man to evil and dis- inclining him to good1, and (£) That this transmitted taint, which he inherits, affects him in body, soul, and spirit, and causes that aversion from God of which all are sensible2.

ix. The Teaching of the Old Testament. To the

existence of some profound source of disorder in man and the world around him the philosophers and poets alike of the ancient and modern world have borne abundant testimony3, and the witness of Scripture is no less clear and explicit.

(a) The earliest pages of Genesis inform us that the first human pair were assailed by a super- natural being of infinite subtilty and malignity, the enemy of God and of all goodness. Appeal- ing first to Eve he began by insinuating a doubt into her mind respecting the consequences of taking of the forbidden fruit, and then by suggesting the idea of an envious God sapped the foundations of all her trust, and roused an

• Actual sin alone is wap&pa<ns, and involves us in personal guilt. Original sin isd/uapria, the missing of perfection, the defect of our nature, the cause of

M.

[…]

ardent longing for independence1. So in an evil hour she took of the fricit and did eat ; and she gave also unto lier husband with Iter, and he did eat (Gen. iii. I — 7) ; (b) Brief and summary as is the information here given respecting the mystery of the Fall and the inroad of Sin2, it teaches the all-important truth : —

(a) That sin is not a substance or thing1;

(/3) That it did not spring up in man’s nature by any inevitable necessity, but came from without, and was the conse- quence of man’s yielding to the seduc- tions of a powerful and malignant foe4;

(7) That he did not, like his Tempter, choose sin for its own sake5, but was beguiled into it ;

4 “The current and tenour of Reve- lation is that Sin came from without. It had a history before it entered into the heart of man, — a history of which Holy Scripture contains a few myste- rious fragments, but a history that can never be traced out by mortal man, save in its most shadowy outlines. How the first tendency to turn away

from the Blessed Face of Almighty God ever originated in Angel or Archangel belongs to the secrets of Eternity. It did, however, originate, and sin had in another world its history.” Bp Ellicott’s Salutary Doctrine, pp. 64,65.

5 “Satan, our Lord tells us, is not only a liar, but the father of it (John viii. 44). That is to say, all evil, as an actually existing fact, is to be traced to him. It was he who first gave historical birth to evil, by himself choosing to try it. When and how this was we are not told; we only know that from the beginning he was a murderer, … The seduction of man was one stage in his downward career. Having tasted evil himself, he persuaded mankind to do the same, not in the open and direct manner in which he himself had done so, but craftily and subtilly as the serpent form expresses.” Mason’s Faith of the Gospel, pp. 106, 10S.

(8) That hence, though his being was poisoned with sin, it was not converted into sin, for he was conscious of trans- gression, and retained an ineradicable sense of shame1, which made him hide himself from the presence of God2, x. Further Witness of the Old Testament. But Scripture also teaches us that the fall of the first man did not merely affect himself. He was not a mere individual member of the species like ourselves. All humanity was gathered up in his one person. His fall was the fall of us all. He transmitted to his descendants the sinful tenden- cies to which he had made himself liable. His sin tainted the stock, and in the wickedness of Cain, who slew his brother (Gen. iv. 8 ; 1 John iii. 12); in the increasing depravity of the Cainite families (Gen. vi. 1 — 7); in the violence and iniquity which rendered necessary

(a) The judgment of the Flood (Gen. vi. 11 — 13);

(b) Then that of the Confusion of Tongues (Gen. xi. 1—9) ;

(c) Then that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. xix. 12 — 28) ;

we have proof that the corruption of man’s nature increased

1 “The image of God is cruelly 2 ” All true morality must rest on a marred, but not utterly destroyed. The certain limitation of the idea of the trace of God’s likeness is yet visible to magnitude of the effect of original sin. Him. When sin drove Adam and Eve If all the higher spiritual faculties be from the garden, they were yet within utterly destroyed, how can man really thelimitsof God’slove. Theirthoughts grieve over his shortcomings, if God turned back to the Paradise they had has deprived him of all power of lost, reached forward to the Promised overcoming and avoiding these short- Seed. This could not have been, if comings?” Bp Forbes On the Articles, human nature had been ruined by the p. 147. “The very Fall in its con- Fall. Absolute ruin must have been summation is so brought about, that it absolute separation from God, which leaves man still man, and therefore is eternal death.” Aubrey Moore, still retaining essentially God’s image.” Some Aspects of Sin, p. 68. Bp Westcott, Gospel of Life, p. 195.

IO—2

in intensity as time went on, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. vi. 5). What we find in these early portions of the Old Testament, we find also in the later. Thus the Psalmist says, Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Ps. li. 5) ; Isaiah says, All we like sheep have gone astray; we have returned every one to his own way (Isai. liii. 6); and Jeremiah declares, The heart is deceitful above all tilings and it is desperately sick; who can know itf (Jer. xvii. 9, R.V.).

xi. The Teaching of the New Testament. When we turn to the New Testament we find (I) Our Lord affirms

(a) That none is good, save One, even God1 (Mark x. 1 8, R.V.);

(b) That from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covctings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness’1 (Mark vii. 21, 22);

1 Ovdels 6.ya66s, el /x-rj eh, 6 Oeos. According to S. Matthew xix. 17 our Lord leads the young man up to God, the Source of all good, from the ques- tion, “What good thing shall I do?” but according to S. Mark and S. Luke from the appeal, “Good Master.” Both agree very well together. ” Good Master, what good thing must I do?” runs the question ; the answer is ” How divided and isolated seems to thee what is good!” Jesus does not decline the appellation ” good ” ; He repels it only in the superficial sense of the questioner. The young man deals with good in its relative meaning ; and in this sense he says “Good,” that is ” Excellent ” Master. “Jesus teaches him to apprehend good in its absoluteness ; and to that end he must

understand the being good, which he ascribes to Christ, as being founded in God.” Lange in toe. “Deusest bonus : bonitasnon est sine Deitate… Jesus titulum Bonitatis sine titulo Dei- “tatis ab illo non accipit : vindicatque honorem Patris sui, cum quo unum est.” Bengel, on Mark x. 18.

2 Thirteen forms of evil are here noticed as proceeding from the heart. The first seven in the plural number, are predominant actions ; the latter six in the singular, dispositions. Comp. the blending of the singular and plural in S. Paul’s enumeration of the works of the flesh, Gal. v. 19—21. “Our unassisted nature is represented in Scripture as the source of much that is evil, but not of anything that is good. We read much in Scripture of

(II) S. Paul states distinctly that

(a) hi Adam all die (1 Cor. xv. 22); (p) Through one man sin1 entered into the world, and death”1 through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned (Rom. v. 12); (c) And as if specially to guard against the doc- trine afterwards propounded by Pelagius, he adds, Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression* (Rom. v. 14).

Thus the teaching of Scripture clearly supports the statement of the Article that the sinful determination of the will on the part of our first parents necessarily involved a disturbance of the whole mode of human existence. Its teaching is not that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to his progeny, so that they deserved punishment for it though innocent of it themselves4. The teaching of Scripture, as regards the doctrine of original sin, is in strict harmony with the modern scientific theory or doctrine of heredity. It is a matter of everyday experience that the sinful habits of parents are transmitted by them to their children, as certainly as other qualities and tendencies are passed on by inheritance. Human nature is bound up together, so that

evil coming out of the natural heart, 3 Kai e-rrl roiis fiT) afiaprrjaavras tvl

but nothing of good coming out of it.” o/xoalfiari tt)s irapafiaatw ‘A5aM

Newman’s Parochial Sermons, v. p. (Rom. v. J4), “even upon those who

132. sinned not upon (on the model of) the

1 ‘H afiaprla . . .6 66.vo.tos. “The ar- likeness of the transgression of Adam.

tide expresses, sin universal… death That death, which marked the pre-

universal.” Vaughan on Rom. v. 12. sence of sin, was inflicted even where

3 ” Natural death, primarily, and as there had been no follmv ing of Adam .” the punishment specially denounced ; Vaughan in loc. spiritual and eternal death incidentally 4 ” Inobedientia et peccatum Ad.u and secondarily, as the necessary con- realiter inha;ret nobis, non autera tan- sequence of the severance of a creature turn imputatur nobis.” Corn, a Lap. from the service and love of the Crea- in Rom. v. 12. tor.” Vaughan in loc.

what one man does diffuses itself as widely as possible’. When the first man sinned, his transgression was diffused like the ripples on the water, and each sin diffuses itself in the same way as the first sin, and adds to the sum2.

xii. The Teaching of the Early Fathers distinctly recognises the solidarity of the human race. Though the term Original Sin did not come prominently into use before the time of Pelagius and S. Augustine, we find the early Fathers speaking of the inherent taint in man’s nature under such expressions as ” the Old Transgression,” “the Ancient Wound,” ” the Old Death.” Thus

(a) Ignatius writes, “Christ gave Himself for us that He might cleanse us from the Old Transgres- sion*”;

(b) Justin Martyr remarks that Christ was crucified “for mankind, who through Adam had fallen under death and the deception of the Serpent4.”

(c) Irenaeus writes that “men are no otherwise saved from the Ancient Wo2cnd of the Serpent, unless they believe in Him, who according to the likeness of sinful flesh is exalted from the earth on the

1 ” Fuit Adam et in illo fuimus sions produce infinite results.” Illing-

omnes.” S. Ambrose. “In lumbis worth’s Sermons, p. 51.

Adam fuimus.” ” Unusquisque homo 2 “The ethical basis of nature,

cum primo nascitur.” ” In illo qui which is not only in but born with

hoc fecit, quando id egit, omnes era- the individual, is conditioned for each

mus.” S. Augustine. See Mozley’s succeeding generation by the genera-

Lectures, p. 142. ” A flaw in the tions going before. Individuals and

metal of a steamship’s machinery, for races are organic points in the sum

which no one seems responsible, will total of development, which has its

in a moment convert the sea from a starting point in the first Adam, and they

high road into a grave ; the sleep of a by nature repeat the Adamic type,

tired official, too long at his post, will livery individual begins from his birth

condemn a hundred helpless travellers an abnormal development of life

to tortures or death. The selfishness whose universal characteristic is the

of a single statesman may plunge conflict between the flesh and the

nations into war, and an epigram be- spirit.” Martensen’s Christian Dog-

fore now has lighted the fires of revolu- matics, p. 174, E. T.

tion. Everywhere the same stern law 3 E/>. ad Trail, viii.

operates and infinitesimal transgres- 4 Dial, cum Tryph. lxxxviii. 316, A.

Tree of Martyrdom, and draweth all things to Himself and quickeneth the dead1.”

(d) Tertullian speaks of Satan as having ” seduced men to violate the command of God, so that he therefore became subject to death, and his whole race, being infected by his sin, was rendered liable to condemnation2.”

(<?) Cyprian maintains that ” the remission of sins by Baptism ought not to be denied to an infant, who being newly born has not sinned, save that being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his earliest birth contracted the contagion of the Old Death3.”

xiii. The Taint remaineth even in the regenerate.

The Article next proceeds to state that this infection of nature remains even in those who are baptized and re- generate. For though the Sacrament of Baptism takes us out of our state by nature and places us in a “state of salvation”; though it unites us to Christ and thus cancels the guilt of original and actual sin, yet it does not eradicate the natural tendency to sin, or heal the wounds which man’s nature has inherited from the first Adam4.

1 Adv. Har. iv. 4, Ed. Cantabr. 1857 ; ” non aliter salvari homines ab antiqua Serpentis plaga nisi credunt in Euro, qui secundum similitudinem carnis peccati in ligno martyrii exalta- tur a terra, et omnia trahit ad Se, et vivificat mortuos.”

a Tertull. de Anima, cap. 40.

3 “Quantomagis [a baptismo] pro- hiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod se- cundum Adam carnaliter natus, con- tagium mortis antiqiue primo nativi- tate contraxit.” Cyprian, Epist. 64 adFidum.

• OiSZv apa vvv Kardxpifia rots iv ‘KptjTflrjaov, Rom. viii. 1. Still, as S. Augustine remarks, ” Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat ; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit.” De Peccato Orig. xl. Moreover, as he further says, ” ipsa desideria vitiosa…in eodem lavacro Baptismatis universo purgantur,” i.e., concupiscence is removed reaiu, but remains aclu, and thenceforth, so far as the will does not consent, the mo/us concupiscentict are not present reaiu but only aclu.

xiv. Scripture Proof. And this accords with the teaching of Scripture. For

(i) S. Paul could say of himself long after his Baptism,

(a) I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage; lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected (i Cor. ix. 27);

(b) I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing (Rom. vii. 18) ;

(c) The good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise (Rom. vii. t9)\

(ii) Again he exhorts his converts to follow his example as regards self-discipline : Thus

(a) He bids the Galatians walk by the Spirit, and, he adds,^ shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh (Gal. v. 16);

(b) He exhorts the Colossians to mortify their members which are upon the earth (Col. iii. 5) ;

(iii) S. Peter, again, bids those who have long been grafted into the Church by Holy Baptism,

(a) To abstain fro7n fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (1 Pet. ii. 11);

(b) To be sober and watchful, and to resist the devil who as a roaring lion was ever walking about, seeking whom he might devour (1 Pet. v. 8);

(iv) And S. John, addressing well - established Churches in Asia Minor, says,

1 Ov yap 8 0Aw wolu aya66v dXV 6 ov fAw kclkov, touto Trp&aao). The distinction here, as marked in the

[…]

(a) If zve say that we have no sin1, we deceive our- selves, and the truth is not in us (1 John i. 8) ;

(b) If any man sin1, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous- (1 John ii. I).

These passages are sufficient to show that though the guilt of sin is cancelled in Baptism, yet the tendency to it and the infection of it remain even in them who are “regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church.”

xv. Concupiscence. The last clause of the Article asserts that ” although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized,” yet the Apostle Paul, who tells us this, “doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.” He himself writes, I had not known sin, except through the Law ; for I had not known lust, except the Law had said Thou sJialt not lust (Rom. vii. 7)’. Here lust and sin seem to be identified. Again he says, Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof (Rom. vi. 12), and S. James affirms that Lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin (Jas. i. 15)4.

3 ti]V re yap (widvp-lav ovk rjSeiv, cl fir) 6 vbixos ZXeyfv, Oiik 4irt8vu.rjO-eii = T/ion shall not covet or lust, see R.V. of Rom. vii. 7. “My knowledge (con- sciousness) of desire, as a restless un- ruly force within, was due to its pro- hibition by the Z«7£/…The imperfect (t\eyev) seems to express the reiter- ation of the prohibition, in every hearing and reading of the Decalogue. The Law was saying; kept saying.” Vaughan in loc.

[…]

The Mediaeval Divines regarded the existence of lust or concupiscence as one of the disorders of man’s natural powers, one of the wounds inflicted on his nature at the Fall, as tending to sin, but not in itself actual sin1. The Reforming Divines of the Sixteenth Century regarded man’s carnal concupiscence2 as sinful, seeing it may tempt to deadly wickedness, unless by God’s grace it is strenuously resisted3. The statement of the Article holds an inter- mediate place between these views. It recognises the dangerous tendency of concupiscence, but it also holds with S. James that, only when it hath conceived, can it be regarded as actual sin. The evil bias obviously has the nature of sin* ’, but it is not actually sin until yielded to by a voluntary submission of the will.

natural and innocent ; it is when the man resolves to gratify it against what he feels to be the higher law of duty, that he becomes guilty of sin even be- fore he carries out his resolve in act.” Mayor in loc.

[…]

3 The Assembly of Divines define concupiscence as ” truely and pro- perly sin,” and similarly the Saxon

Confession. Hard wick, Articles, p.

376, ed. 1859.

377, ed. 1859.

Notes

• Hard wick, Hist. Articles, pp. 62 and 375.
• The Pelagians denied altogether the existence of original sin in any real sense as an hereditary moral cor- ruption. They refuse to acknowledge the propagation of sin by generation (peccaium a traduce). Sin, they said, is not born with man, but is commit- ted afterwards by man. One of the charges brought against Coelestius at a Synod held in Carthage A.D. 412 was that he taught “quod infantes qui nas- cuntur in eo statu sint.in quo fuit Adam ante transgressionem.” S. Aug. de Peccato Orig. iii. 3. For a summary of Pelagian doctrine see Canon Blight’s Waymarks in Church History, pp. 185— r88.
• Depravatio. From pravus = twist- ed, crooked (comp. Hor. Sat. i. 3. 48, wherehe speaksof a man ” pravis fultum male talis,” /’// supported on crooked legs), comes the verb depravare = to disfigure or distort, and the substantive depravatio = distortion, applied some- times (1) to physical deformity, as “pedum, manuum, articulorum omni- um depravationes,” Seneca, Ep. xxiv.; sometimes (2) to moral deformity, or corruption, comp. ” depravatio et fcedi- tas turpificati animi,” Cic. Off. iii. 29,
• Quam longissime = very far, contemplate our powers, our aspira- though not absolutely or entirely. tions, our failures, an ideal, towards The Assembly of Divines in 1643 which we are made to strain.” Bp preferred the phrase ” -wholly deprived Westcott, The Incarnation and C0111- of original righteousness.” Hardwick, man life, pp. 46, 47.
• See Winer’s Confessions of Chris- Integra, in which there is added the tendom, p. 78. empire of reason ; (3) Status Natures
• “Each one is by his nature that which Adam made himself by his act.” Martensen’s Christian Dogmatics, p.
• See Mozley’s Lectures and Theol. Papers, p. 145, and the quotations in the Introduction to the Creeds, pp. 250 — 252 ; Bp Wordsworth’s Hamp- ton Lectures, pp. 153, 154; Aubrey Moore, Some Aspects of Sin, p. 72.
• “Evil is simply the disorder intro- duced into things by the perversity of creatures abusing their freewill and asserting, which is the essence of all sin — independence of God.” Gore’s Hints for the Study of Theology, p. 5.
• “The one dark, insoluble mystery of human life is sin. It is so impos- sible for us to explain it ; so futile to try and explain it away. It is so terri- bly familiar, so utterly unintelligible.” Aubrey Moore, Aspects of Sin, p. 65.
• See Introduction to the Creeds, p. 748 ; Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, ii. p. 251 sqq.
• ‘Ap-aprlav ovk (x°V-(vi We have no sin. “The phrase aixapriav £x” is peculiar to S. John in the N. T. Like corresponding phrases Zx(iV 7rm tiv (Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21 &c), fwrjx Zxei” (John v. 26, 40 […] (John xvi. 21 f.), &c. , it marks the presence of something which is not isolated but a continuous source of influence. (Comp. kolvwvIclv xel” v- 3-) Thus ‘to have sin’ is distinguished from ‘to sin’ as the sinful principle is distinguished from the sinful act in itself. ” Westcott in loc.
• “Christ as Advocate pleads the cause of the believer against his ’ ac- cuser’ (KarJiyopos, Apoc.xii. 10; comp. Zech. iii. 1 ; avriSiKOi, 1 Pet. v. 8).” Westcott in loc. On irapanXriTos, see Introduction to the Creeds, p. 212.
• The ” Pronitas ad Malum.” See Winer’s Confessions of Christendom, p. 99.
• It contains in it a “rationem pec- cati,” but not “veram et propriam rationem.” Without being actual sin, it inclines to sin. Bishop Gardiner writes, ” Althoughe the gylte of origi- nall synne be taken away in baptysme, yet the scarre of it (as it were), y° mat- ter of it doth remayne, whiche as it troubleth and letteth man’s perfection in virtue… so it is not to be accompted our synne tyll we conceyue it by em- bracyng and agreynge to such carnall motions.” Hardwick, Hist. Art., p.