« AnteriorContinuar »
said, “that children shall not be put to death “ for their father's, but every man shall be put to rs death for his own sin.” (Deut. xxiv. 16.) Hence they say, this doctrine, which contradicts God's attributes, should be rejected.
(4.) As to St. Paul's words, they consider them inconclusive. For their force is much weakened by their being a single proof, whereas on so necessary a doctrine it is natural to expect the support of parallel passages. It is allowed, too, that an illustration should always be clearer than the question it is brought to prove, which is here by no means the case, for the imputation of Adam's sin is certainly less conceivable than the reconciliation by Christ. And hence it is conjectured, that the words are used by St. Paul, merely to prove his point to the Jews on their own admission, and as it was a general opinion among them, that all men's souls were in Adam's body, so he may have taken advantage of that opinion to establish the truth of Christ's sacrifice, at the same time that we are not bound to agree in the premises he adopts for the purpose. Again they add, that all comparisons are not to be taken in their full extent: thus we are required “ to be perfect, as God is perfect ;" where the comparison only implies resemblance, not equality.
2. As to the manner in which this corruption is conveyed to us : Augustin seems to us to have
believed in the doctrine of a soul being propagated from parent to child. Some of his fol. lowers, however, accounted for the corruption of the soul, by supposing it was first created pure, but being infused into a corrupt body at the moment of conception, it became instantly impure, though God was thereby freed from the charge of having made it so.
3. As to the consequences of it. They explain the words of the Article literally, as signifying the eternal wrath and damnation to which all were exposed by the sin of Adam. Hence, it would inevitably follow, that infants dying before the commission of personal sin, should be damned. This opinion, however, was so repugnant to every feeling of human nature, that the term damnation was made to signify a state of insensibility, and to this infants were supposed to be condemned. And here was the source of another objection advanced against the doctrine, that its upholders shrunk from avowing consequences, which were yet necessarily deduced from its admission.
II. The Article asserts, that this infection of nature remains in the regenerate.
This is constantly declared in Scripture. In Rom. vii. 21, the Apostle affirms, that " when he would do good, evil is present with him.” If this passage is allowed to allude to St. Paul's own feelings, it is decisive on the point. This inter
pretation, however, has been rejected by many commentators.a Other passages may still be adduced, “ The flesh lusteth against the spirit, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” (Gal. v. 17.) We are desired “to mortify the deeds of the body.” Rom. viii. 13.
Nor can it be said that baptism removes all the effect of original sin. It is enough if we are by it delivered from the wrath of God, and acquire a federal right to such assistances as will enable us to resist our corrupt nature; but the disposition to evil still remains. Hence it is, that Roman Catholic writers have denied the sinfulness of concupiscence or lust. For, as they believe that original sin is quite taken away by baptism, and, nevertheless, find that this disposition still remains in us, they therefore conclude, that it is no more than the natural state in which Adam was made at first, except that he was assisted with supernatural grace to enable him to overcome it.
Among others by Whitby, Hammond, and Kettlewell.
• In Rom. vii. 7. St. Paul declares, “that he had not known sin but by the law.” He then gives an instance of this : “ he had not known last except the law had said, thou shalt not covet.” Last, therefore, he expressly asserts is sin. The Council of Trent, however, boldly avow their opposition to the Apostle : “ The concupiscence which “ the Apostle Paul sometime calleth sin, this holy council declareth, " that the Catholic Church never understood it to be called sin." Conc. Trid. Sess. 5. See Jewel's Def. of Apol. p. 2. c. 11. Div. 3; Field of the Church, 1. 3. c. 26., and Prideaux's Fas. Cont. p. 115.
· Roman Catholic writers make original sio to consist wholly in ARTICLE X.
THE CONDITION OF MAN AFTER THE FALL OF ADAM
IS SUCH, THAT HE CANNOT TURN AND PREPARE HIMSELF BY HIS OWN NATURAL STRENGTH, TU FAITH AND CALLING UPON GOD." WHEREFORE, WE HAVE NO POWER TO DO GOOD WORKS PLEASANT AND ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, WITHOUT THE GRACE OF GOD BY
CHRIST PREVENTING US, THAT WE MAY HAVE A GOOD
WILL, AND WORKING WITH US WHEN WE HAVE THAT
BEFORE we proceed to the immediate consideration of the Article, it will be necessary to state the true notion of liberty. Some imagine that liberty must suppose a freedom to do or not to do, and to act differently at pleasure. Such entire liberty, however, does not seem necessary to constitute an action morally good or bad. Thus, God acts with the most perfect liberty, yet he cannot sin; and angels are moral agents, yet they cannot be otherwise than virtuous. The true notion of liberty seems to be this, that a rational being is not determined as mere matter, by the impulse of other bodies upon it, but that it is capable of thought, and upon considering the objects set before it, makes a decision and a consequent choice. In this inward capacity of thinking, and of acting and choosing upon thought, liberty seems to consist.
the privation of this sapernatural righteousvess, but not in any positire corruption of the nature. In opposition to this doctrine, perhaps, the Article states that man is not only “ very far gone from original righteousness,” but also actually “inclined to evil.” See Archbp. Laurence's Bampton Lect. Ser. 3.n.( 4.)
a The doctors of the Roman Charch held, that man could by his own exertions so prepare himself for grace, that though he could not actually merit everlasting life, still these exertions would render it incumbent on God, consistently with his attributes, to give him (what was bence called) grace de congruo, by which he could obtaio immortality by condign merit. In opposition to this, perhaps, the article is directed. See Archb, Laurence's Lectures, ser. 4. note (4.)
5 The Roman doctors, likewisc, held that prayer was acceptable to God, ex opere operato ; in allusion to this idea, perhaps, the article adds faith, to, calling upon God. See A. Laur, ser. 5. note (7.) These Lectures throw considerable light on the history of our Articles.
may be asked here, whether the will is not always determined by the final judgment of the understanding ?b. If this be granted, then no liberty will be left to our faculties; for, if a proposition appears true to the understanding, it
a See Locke's Works, v. 1. p. 223. Ed. 1812. Reid's Essays, p. 326. Ed. 1803. And Sterry on the Freedom of the Will.
• The affirmative of this question is beld by Turretin, Inst. Theol. L. 10. Q. 3. The negative, by Curcellæus, Oper. Theol. p. 965 : Limborch, Theol. Chr. 1. 2. c. 23, and Field, of the Church, Ap. to B. 3. c. 10.