Trollope on Article XV: Of Christ alone without Sin
William Trollope, 1850
Commentaries on Article XV: Rogers (1607)Ellis (1660)Burnet (1699)Beveridge (d. 1708)Welchman (1713)Practical Exposition (1716)Veneer (1725)Madan (1772)Hey (1796)Tomline (1799)Wilson (1821)Jones (1849)Trollope (1850)Browne (1850)Forbes (1867)Boultbee (1871)Maclear & Williams (1895)Green (1896)Gibson (1896)Jackson (1900)Bicknell (1919) · Article 15: text, context and Study
Article XV. Of Christ alone without 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. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. 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.
Text: Book of Common Prayer (1662)
Cleaned OCR; [...] marks passages cut for illegibility. See the scan. Text: Questions and Answers on the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, by William Trollope (London, 1850). Cleaned OCR from the Internet Archive copy of the Google scan; passages too garbled to recover are marked [...]. Public domain.
This Article asserts the perfect sirdessTiesa of Christ, as essential to the fulness of his atonement ; and the sinfulness of all mankind even after regeneration, thereby removing the very foundation upon which the doctrine of human merit, arising out oi works of supererogation, can rest.
- In what did Christ, with reference to his human nature, differ from the rest of mankind ?
Though Christ took the human nature upon him, as already proved, yet was he not conceived and oom in sin, as are the rest of mankind. His conception hy the Holy Ghost preserved him from the taint of original sin (Luke i. 85.) ; and the Scriptures throughout bear unvarying testi- mony to his pure and spotless life. * As the children are
-
partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of ^ the same ; that through death he might destroy him that *had tlie power of death, that is, the devil. Therefore we *have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with ’ the feeling of our infirmities ; but he was in all parts
-
tempted like as we are, yet without sin.*
- How are we to look upon the notion, which has been entertained by some, of the peccability of Christ ?
It has been urged, indeed, that Christ in his human nature must have been pecccible : but at all events we are bound to acquiesce in the distinct assurances that ^ in him
- was no sin (1 John iii. 5.) ; that he was *■ holy, harmless, ’ undefiled, separate from sinners ’ (Heb. vii. 26.) ; and that ’ he did no sm, neither was guile found in his mouth’ (1 Pet. ii. 22.). Had he indeed been polluted by sin, either
ARTICLE xr. 69
original or actual, he would have needed a Redeemer as well as others ; and therefore * he offered himself without ’ tpot to Gods* and so ’ put away sin hy the sacrifice of him-
- self* (Heb. ix, 14. 26.). [See also Art. ii. qq. 12, 13, 16.]
- Why is Christ called the Lamb of God with- out spot ?
The Paschal Lamb, which was a type of Christ, was required to be * without spot or blemish. Hence St. John speaks of him as * the Lamb of Grod, which taketh away the *sin of the world’ (John i. 29.).
- How do you reconcile the fact that all men are sinners with the righteousness sometimes attri- huted to eminent characters in Scripture ?
It has already been shown (Art. IX. qq. 2. 11. 13.) that all men, ‘although baptized and bora again in Christ,
-
offend in many things.* True it is that the Scriptures call some few men rigJiteoits, as NoaJi, for instance, and Joby and Zacharias ; but they were only good comparatively with mankind in general. Indeed transgressions of no trivial nature are recorded against each of them ; but God visited them with his free and unmerited pardon, and ac- cepted their sincere, though imperfect, endeavours after holiness instead of an absolute unsinning obedience. ’ Their
-
faith was counted for righteousness,*
- Still, is not absolute impeccability ascribed hy St. John to the true children of God ?
St. John, indeed, has said that a true Christian ’ cannot 8in, because he is born of God (1 John iii. 9.). Strong, however, as the expression is, it must not be so interpreted as to imply positive impeccability ; but limited, as in many similar {Scriptural expressions, to a. strorig repugvanceta^iViBt sin. If otherwise understood, the Apostle will be made to contradict himself; for he has also said that * if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not ‘in us* (1 John i. 8.).
- Shew that the early Christian writers h^ve asserted that Christ is ahne without sin.
Justin Mavtyr (Dial. Tryph.) speaks of Christ as the only unreprovabU just mmi ; and Irenseus (Hser. v. 14.) remarks that he differed from other men in this respect, that he committed no sin, whereas we are sinners. Tertullian (de Pudic. c. 19.) affirms that there are some sins, as causeless and excessive anger, unneicfhbourly conduct, rash swearins^, breach of promise, or thoughtless lying, which men are dauy liable to run into. Thus also Clement of Alexandria (Fseda^. III. in fine) : — The Word ailone is without sin ; for sin is natural and common to all.
Read at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/questionsandans01trolgoog