Maclear and Williams on Article XVI: Of Sin after Baptism

i. Connection. But if Christ is alone without spot of sin, and we are pure only so far as we partake of His purity, what is to be said of those who, after being made members of His Body by Baptism, commit deadly sin? Are we to hold, as some did in the early Church, and as some taught in the sixteenth century1, that for such there is no hope of pardon ? Or are we to believe that a man once reconciled to God and admitted into Covenant with Him, cannot fall from Grace given ?

ii. The Title. To both these questions the Sixteenth Article contains an answer. Its present Title, however,

differs considerably from that which it bore in 1563, when it ran “De lapsis post Baptismum,” “Concerning those who have fallen after Baptism,” and still more from the Title which it bore in 1553, “De Peccato in Spiritum Sanctum,” “Concerning Sin against the Holy Ghost.” The present Title is a more general one, “De Peccato post Baptismum,” “Of Sin after Baptism.”

iii. The Erroneous Views held on this subject in the early Church were those of the Montanists and Novatians: —

(a) The Montanists regarded it as their special task to reform Christian Life and Church dis- cipline, in view of the expected second Coming of our Lord, and they held that the Church had no right to grant assurance of forgiveness to those who had broken their Baptismal vows by grievous sin’ ;

(/3) The Novatians, who derived their name from Novatian, a presbyter of Rome in the third century, taught that every mortal sin committed after Baptism is unpardonable, and that, there- fore, the lapsed, or those who had fallen into apostasy during the Decian persecution, had no more hope of salvation, and could not be restored to the Church2.

iv. The same Erroneous Views were reproduced in the sixteenth century by a section of the Anabaptists, who appeared in great numbers in Essex and Kent3. They taught that all hope of pardon is taken away from those,

• Comp. the words of the Augsburg Confession, Art. xii. ” Damnantur et Novatiani, qui nolebant absolvere lapsos post baptismum redeuntes ad

poenitentiam.” Sylloge Con/essionum, p. 127.

who fall into sin after having received the Holy Ghost, and at the same time held that a man once 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 sin1.”

v. Analysis. In opposition to such views the Article asserts

(1) That “not every deadly sin2 willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable ” ;

(2) That “the grant of repentance3 is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism ” ;

(3) That “after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and rise again and amend our lives4,” and that ” they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.”

vi. Scripture Proof. The remissibility of sin5 after

2 Peccatum mortak. This expres- sion is grounded on the words 1 John v. 16. It does not mean a sin com- mitted in weakness or through the violence of some sudden temptation, but a sin committed wilfully, with the full consent of the will (voluntarie), and a consciousness of the guilt of the act.

3 Locus panitcntia seems to be de- rived from fieraifotas rdiros in II eb. xii. 17. It was a Roman law term. In 1553 it was translated “the place

for penitents,” alluding to the custom in the early Church of reserving a place as far as possible from the altar for penitents, before they were received back into full communion by the Bishop or other authorities of the Church.

4 Resipiscere, from re and sapere = (1) to taste again ; (2) to recover one’s senses, to come to oneself again, comp. Plautus Mil. Glor. iv. 8. 24, ” Afferte aquam dum resipiscit ” ; (3) to be- come reasonable, to repent or amend.

5 The remissibility of post-Baptis- mal sin is essential to Christianity as (a) A Paternal Religion, for the God of Christianity is a Father ; His for- bearance (Rom. ii. 4) and His punish- ment (Ps. xcix. 8) are both alike evi- dence of His care for His children

Baptism may be deduced from the teaching (1) of our Lord, and (2) of His Apostles : —

(a) The teaching of our Lord :

(1) When the Apostles asked Him to teach them to pray, He gave them the Lord’s Prayer, and in it He taught them, as He teaches us, to say Forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us (Luke xi. 4). He nowhere limits these words, or tells us that under certain circumstances the baptized children of God may not use this Prayer, because forgiveness is impossible ;

(2) Again in the Parable of the Prodigal Son He describes how not a stranger but a son left his father’s house, and went into a far country, and there wasted his substance in riotous living, and yet on his repentance was welcomed home and pardoned (Luke xv. 11 — 32);

(3) He gave to His Apostles the power of binding and loosing (Matt, xviii. 18), and He ratified this gift after He rose from the dead, saying, Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained (John xx. 23). He nowhere hints that the Grace of forgiveness does not apply to those who sin after Baptism.

(Ps. ciii. passim ; i Pet. v. 7) ; it is also essential to it as (b) An Idealistic Religion ; the Founder of Christianity has been the most powerful, because the most tranquil exponent of the view that ” morality is the nature of things,” that “the highest ideal is at the same time the deepest reality of

the world.” Such idealism constitutes a religion of hope, immeasurably the more hopeful, where ” Love comes to quicken hope.” John iii. 16, 17; Rom. v. 5 sqq. See Caird, Evolution of Religion, ii. pp. 139, 275 ; Fowle, Why do men remain Christians ? Contemp. Review, p. 120, Jan. r8o.3.

(/3) The teaching of the Apostles:

(1) Here S. Peter naturally claims the first place, for not only had he himself been forgiven after a fall, which might well have been be- lieved to place him beyond the power of ab- solution, but we find him extending the hope of pardon even to Simon Magus1. This man had been baptized (Acts viii. 13), and yet was declared by the Apostle to be in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity (Acts viii. 23). Nevertheless S. Peter urges him to repentance, and bids him pray the Lord, if perJiaps the thought of his heart shall be for- given him (Acts viii. 22);

(2) Again S. Paul was confronted at Corinth with an instance of gross immorality, and he passes on the offender the sentence of excommunica- tion (1 Cor. v. 1 — 8). But when the in- cestuous person has given proof of his sorrow and repentance, the Apostle orders him to be restored to communion, lest he should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow2 (2 Cor. ii. 7). So also the same Apostle exhorts the Galatians, if a man be overtaken in any trespass, to restore such a one in a spirit of meekness (Gal. vi. i)3;

(3) In like manner S. John, writing to baptized Christians, exhorts them, on the one hand,

1 On the case of Simon Magus see spirit might be saved in the day of the

Hooker, Ecel. Pol. v. lxvi. 2, and Lord Jesus (i Cor. v. 5).

[…]

very object he had in view, when he should be even taken before he could

passed the sentence, was that his escape, flagrante delicto.

not to sin1, and on the other bids them, if they fall into sin, not to despair, for we have an Advocate with the Father, Jcsns Christ the righteous, and He2 is the propitiation for our sins (i John ii. i, 2).

vii. Objections. But it is urged that certain passages seem to militate against this view of the remissibility of post-Baptismal sin. Thus our Lord says, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven… but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come (Matt. xii. 31, 32). Now here it is to be observed that

(a) This awful warning arose out of the fact that the Pharisees had dared to ascribe our Lord’s miracles of mercy to Satan and Beelzebub (Matt. xii. 24), rather than allow that He, Who wrought them, was that which He claimed to be;

(b) Our Lord does not affirm that even they had committed sin against the Holy Spirit, though doubtless they were very near committing it3;

(c) He mercifully warns them of the peril, which they were bringing upon themselves, and of the

1 TVxWa fum, raOra ypr.fiia byuv tVa ation fur our sins.” Westcott in loc. jxT) anapT-qre, at non peeceHs Vulg. , 3 “To speak against the Holy that ye may not sin. “The thought Ghost is to speak against the clear is of the single act (a/xdpTTjTe) not of voice of conscience, to call good evil the state (anapravriTe) ;…the single and light darkness, to pursue goodness act, into which the believer may be as such with malignity and hatred, carried… as contrasted with the habit- Such sin, or sinful stale, cannot be ual state.” See Westcott in loc. forgiven since from its very nature it

2 Kai aurdt, et ipse Vulg. and He, excludes the idea of repentance. Jesus, or rather, and He Himself. “The who saw the heart, knew that the emphatic pronoun enforces the thought Pharisees were insincere in the charge of the efficacy of Christ’s advocacy which they brought against Him. as ‘righteous.’ He who pleads our They were attributing to Satan what cause, having fulfilled the destiny of they knew to be the work of God.” man, is at the same time the propiti- Carr on Matt. xii. 32.

2o6

GROUP in.

desperate state of sin1, into which they might fall. Now He would scarce have done this, if there was in their present state no hope that they could repent, no possibility of their being for- given.

viii. Objections continued. Again the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms

(a) As touching those who were once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made par- takers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted t/ie good word of God, and tJie powers of the age to come, and fell away-, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame (Heb. vi. 4 — 6). Now here we have to notice

(1) That the sin spoken of as “falling away” is not a lapse into moral guilt3, but a positive and continuous apostasy from the Christian faith4;

(2) That the impossibility here asserted is not

1 In the strictly theological sense Mortal Sin itself is a state, not an act, e.g. “quod aliquis non habitualitcr referat se et omnia sua in Deum,” and thus an act of Mortal Sin as distinct from a Venial Sin is an “actus deliberalus ratione.” Yet even such a state ” reparari potest. ..per virtutem divinam.” Comp. S. Thorn. Aquinas, Sum »i. ii. i, Qu. 88. i, 2.

2 “This brief clause bears the whole weight of the terrible contrast between the past state, with its many gracious particulars, and the lapse from it. All these experiences of grace — and all for- feited!” Vaughan in loc.

3 Ilapa jreowras ; ’ ’ post tanta dona.” Corn, a Lapide in loc. The term is a

strong one. See Rom. xi. n where irtiTTbi as contrasted with Trratoi im- plies an irreparable fall. “It is the final throwing away of grace, not any one sin of exceptional heinousness, which is the subject of all these pas- sages.” Vaughan in loc.

1 For the word fyuriaBcvTas became in Christian usage a constant term for conversion to the Christian faith. Hence •buriaubs became almost sy- nonymous with Holy Baptism from the time of Justin Martyr downwards (Apol. i. 6i, 65). The Syriac Versions give this sense here. Pesh. who have once descended to baptism ; Hcl. ■who have once been baptized. Comp. Westcott in loc.

ARTICLE XVr.

that of a single renewal, but of an indefinitely repeated renewal1 of those, who persist in turning their backs on the one appointed way of salvation, and in neglecting the ordained means of grace ; (/3) In another passage, again, of the same Epistle the writer asserts that if we sin zvilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgement, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries (Heb. x. 26, 27). Here again applying the same rule of interpretation we observe

(1) That the sin alluded to is not a sudden lapse, but a wilful and continuous persistence in a course of sin2;

(2) That this continuous persistence in sin3 is understood to follow a more advanced know- ledge1 than a simple acquaintance with the primary elements of the Faith ;

1 ” The distinction between the pre- sent and aorist tenses is conspicuous throughout the passage. The aorists pwi.00ii’Ta.s, yevaadfovt, yevqBtvTas, Trapa.irer6vTas indicate single acts. The presents &ia.Kaivi£eti, avaaTavpovvras, 7rapa57/aoWforas point not to single acts, but to a continued state of hard- heartedness, revealing itself in suc- cessive acts and thus becoming habitual. There is an active continuous hostility implied in the souls of such men. The present participles bring out the moral cause of the impossibility which has been affirmed.” Westcott in loc.

2 “To sin ‘Eicowiws is to sin not under the constraining force of sudden temptation acting upon the weakness of

the mortal nature, but (as Psalm xxv. 3 expresses it) without cause (SiuKtvrjs LXX.), that is, by free choice and will.” Vaughan in loc.

3 ‘Ekoiw/ws aixapravbvTwv T)fiCiv = if we zvilfully persist in sin, voluntat is pucantibus nobis. Vulg. The present tense deserves all attention. Two distinct elements are indicated by the phrase employed, (1) the voluntariness, that is the realised consciousness, and (2) the habitual indulgence in the sin. Comp. Westcott in loc.

[…]

(3) That it is not said that for such there is no more forgiveness possible, but that there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins1. The one true Sacrifice has been offered up once for all. He who by wilful and persistent sin cuts himself off from the communion of the Church, cuts himself off from that one Sacrifice, that one Source of forgiveness, and this cannot but end in a certain fearful ex- pectation of judgment, and righteous retribu- tion on the part of a holy God. (7) Once more in the same Epistle we are told respecting Esau, who for one mess of meat2 sold Ids own birthright, that even when he afterward3 desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected {for lie found 710 place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with tears (Heb. xii. 16, 17);

Now here it is clear (1) That if the writer meant to assert that Esau earnestly sought to repent, but could not, then he is contradicting the whole tenour of the Scriptures and of the Gospel ;

ness of the fall which is contemplated. Comp. WVstcott in loc. On yvdxrit and lirlyvwais see The Introduction to the Creeds, p. 18 «.

1 The order of the words in the original is remarkable, llepi auapriuiv stands prominently first, dvvla last ; for sins there is left no sacrifice. ” The sacrifice of Christ has been rejected; and there is no other sacrifice which can be effectual.” ” Non reservatur nobis ultra hostia pro peccato quae pro nobis offeratur, sicut in veteri lege donatum est hostias sa?pe offerre pro peccatis.” Primabius quoted by West- cott in loc.

2 ‘Avt! j3pciirea)S iiia.t=for one mess of meat, Vulg. propter unam escam. For a single meal. It was not only for a transitory and material price, but that the smallest, he sold his oxvn birthright, to irpuroTOKia cavrou. Comp. Gen. xxv. 32 sqq. Comp. Westcott in loc.

3 Kal fcrr^reiTo. “Even after- wards. So long after, that he might have hoped that the early folly was forgotten and done with. The common chronology interposes more than 40 years between the two incidents.” Yaughan in loc.

(2) That what Esau earnestly desired was a reversal of the temporal consequences of his action, an undoing of the effects of what he had done, an obtaining of the blessing in spite of his selling the birthright. This, however, he could not obtain, though he sought it1 diligently with tears. The lost blessing could not be won again;

(3) That the consideration of the forgiveness of his sin against God as distinct from the reversal of the temporal consequences2 of his sin, lies wholly outside the argument.

ix. Final Perseverance. The second error condemned in the Article is the doctrine that the regenerate cannot fall away from Grace once given, and can no more sin as long as they live; in other words, that Grace is indefectible. As regards this doctrine we have to notice

(a) That the holy angels were not incapable of falling. They kept not their own estate or principality (Jude 6), but fell away and await the judgement of the Great Day (J ude 6) ; That our Lord distinctly spoke of (a) the good seed decoming3 unfruitful (Matt. xiii. 22); (b) the salt losing its savour (Matt. v. 13); (c) the branch being cast forth from the vine (John

1 The iK^-trrriaat avT-f/v must refer to Esau sought repentance and could not

the lost blessing, rip (vXoylav, not the find it. What Esau sought with tears

/xeravolas riiros. He had sold the was the eiiXoyla, and to it alone can

right of the firstborn, and yet, as if avrriv refer with any shadow of ad-

that were a trivial thing, he claimed herence to the history even if spiritual-

to inherit the blessing which belonged ized into allegory. The simple ex-

to it. planation of the difficulty is that the

[…]

amissi, regret for the consequences of are practically parenthetical to the

his folly, not dolor admisri, a godly main sentence.” Vaughan in loc.

for sin, not to be repented of. 3 Tlferai (Matt. xiii. ii) — resulteth

“There is no pretence for saying that in Mng, provelk, becomcth.

M. 14

2IO

xv. 6), all which expressions indicate the possibility of a Christian’s falling away from Grace once given ;

(7) That S. Paul reminds the Corinthians of the awful warning supplied by the Israelitish nation of the possibility of falling from Grace, for they all enjoyed the highest possible privileges, but, instead of entering the Promised Land, were all, with the exception of two, overthrown in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 — 12). He also dis- tinctly contemplates the possibility of his becoming a castazvay himself {\ Cor. ix. 27), and, later, in his Epistle to the Philippians speaks of himself as having by no means attained to perfection (Phil. iii. 12, 13);

(8) Lastly S. Peter, with the remembrance ever before him of his own terrible fall, exhorts the Christians of the Dispersion to give the more diligence to make their calling and election sure1 (2 Pet. i. 10), and he says of those, who, after escaping the defilements of the world, again become entangled therein and overcome, that the last state has become with them worse than the first (2 Pet. ii. 20) -.

xi. Conclusion. Thus the language of the Article harmonizes with the statements of Holy Scripture, and no less with those of the Prayer-Book. For (a) in the Baptismal Office we pray that the child to be admitted into

1 S. Peter evidently regards ” the calling and election ” of which he speaks as Divine acts according to the Divine foreknowledge (i Pet. i. 2). But he is not hindered by any specu- lative difficulties from admitting that it was in man’s power to frustrate

both (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; Gal. ii. 21), and that effort was required to give them permanent validity. See Prof. Plumptre’s note in loc.

2 An obvious reminiscence of our Lord’s teaching in Matt. xii. 45.

Christ’s Church “may ever remain in the number of God’s faithful and elect children”; (b) in the Catechism the child is taught to pray unto God that he may continue in that state of salvation, into which he has been called; (c) in the Morning and Evening Prayer we beseech God “not to take His Holy Spirit from us”; (d) in the Collect for the thirteenth Sunday after Trinity we pray “that we may so faithfully serve God in this life, that we fail not finally to attain His heavenly promises”; and (e) in the Burial Office we beseech our “holy and merciful Saviour, our most worthy Judge eternal,” that He will “suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from Him1.”

1 It is not intended to deny that (a) theoretically ignores the fact that there is such a thing as Final Perse- the whole course of this life is a state verance ; on the contrary, it is the of probation, (/>) practically has hin- Grace of Final Perseverance for which dcred the growth of moral conduct ; we pray in these and in similar pe- “mater negligentiae solet esse se- ctions ; what is denied is the Inde- curitas.” fectibility of Grace, a doctrine which

Notes

• See Hardwick, Articles, pp. 88, 100.
• Tertullian, De Pudicilia, c. 11. Cheetham, First Six Centuries, p.
• I lard wick, Articles, p. 88, where we have a letter from Bp Hooper to Bullinger, June 25, 1549, describing the appearance of the Anabaptists in England.
• ” Damnat Anabaptistas, qui ne- gant semel justiticatos posse aniittere Spiritum Sanctum. Item qui con- tendunt quibusdam tantam perfec- tionem in hac vita contingere, ut peccare non possint.” Confess. Aug. Art. xii. Sylloge Confessionum, p. 127.