(c) Original righteousness, as that from which man is very far gone."

(d) The effect of the Fall.

(a) The phrase "original sin" (Peccatum originale or peccatum originis). This does not occur anywhere in Holy Scripture, but is due to S. Augustine, who makes use of it in one of his earlier works; and from his day forward it is of frequent occurrence, being made current coin through the Pelagian controversy. The phrase was perhaps suggested to Augustine by the similar expression originis injuriam" which had been used by S. Ambrose; 3 while still earlier S. Cyprian had said of a new-born infant, "secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ prima nativitate contraxit." 4

not.

(b) The Pelagian heresy, as showing what original sin is

This heresy originated early in the fifth century. Its founder, Pelagius, was a monk of British extraction who had settled at Rome. There he took offence at the wellknown saying of Augustine, "Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt," which seemed to him to exalt the Divine at the expense of the human in the work of salvation.5 Subsequently he and his friend and convert, Cœlestius, elaborated the system which has since borne his name. His character may be seen from the charges which were brought against Coelestius at a Council held in 412 at Carthage, whither the two friends

1 The two expressions are evidently regarded as convertible terms. The latter is used in the text of the Article, the former in the title.

2 Ad Simplicianum, I. c. i. § 10.

4

3 Apol. Proph. David. i. § 56. Cf. Aug. Contra duas Epist. IV. § 29.

Ep. lxiv. Cf. Bright's Anti - Pelagian Treatises of S. Augustine, p. ix.

"Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis," Conf. X. c. xxix. Cf. De done persev. c. xx., where Augustine himself refers to this fact.

1

had passed from Rome. The charges (to which Cœlestius returned evasive answers) were these:

1. That Adam was created mortal, and would have died even if he had not sinned.

2. That his sin injured himself alone, and not the whole human race.

3. That infants at their birth are in the same condition in which Adam was before the Fall.

4. That unbaptized infants as well as others would obtain eternal life.

5. That mankind neither died through Adam's death or transgression, nor would rise again through Christ's resurrection.

6. That the law had the same effect as the gospel in leading men to the kingdom of heaven.

7. That even before Christ came there had been sinless men.1

Of these tenets the second and third are the most important, as being most intimately connected with the whole system that was subsequently known as Pelagianism. They amount to (a) a denial that the fall of Adam had affected his descendants; and (b) closely connected with this "a denial of the necessity of supernatural and directly assisting grace in order to any true service of God on the part of man." This latter seems to have been in the order of time prior to the first mentioned, which, however, is its ground and basis. Admit in any true sense the Fall, and Divine grace becomes a necessity. Deny the Fall, and grace may perhaps be dispensed with and human nature without supernatural assistance be found equal to the conflict with sin.

1 See on the whole subject Bright's Anti-Pelagian Treatises, Introd. p. xvi. seq., and Schaffs History of the Church, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity," vol. ii. p. 790 seq.

Bright, p. ix.

There was, however, the fact of universal depravity to be explained. What account could be given of the fact that sin is found everywhere? Pelagius could only explain it by saying that it resulted from the universal following of Adam's example. Adam's fall, according to him, had no effect on the nature of his descendants. But by sinning he set an example which all, or almost all (for Pelagius admitted exceptions), had followed. This is the view of original sin which was revived by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, and which is condemned in the opening words of our Article. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk. The meaning of the English phrase is made clear by a reference to the Latin, Peccatum originis non est in imitatione Adami situm. "Standeth not " is equivalent to "does not consist;"1 "the following of Adam" is the imitation of him, or sinning after his example.

In support of the assertion of the Article, and the position taken up by the Church on this subject, it appears to be sufficient to appeal to the teaching of S. Paul in Rom. v. 12-15: "As through one sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of Him that was to come."

Universal depravity is recognised as a fact throughout the Old Testament, but no explanation of it is offered. There appear to be only two possible ones. Either, as the Pelagians asserted, it results from the fact that all

1 Compare the similar use of "standeth" in the Second Collect at Mattins: "in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life."

men follow Adam's example, and sin "after the likeness of his transgression," or there is a "fault" in the inherited nature which makes sinning easy and natural. Jewish writings outside the Canon show us that though there was no consistent doctrine among the Jews on the subject, yet some among them were feeling their way towards the position laid down by S. Paul, and were inclined to hold that universal sin was due to the fact that the fall of Adam had permanently affected his descendants.1 And on this point the teaching of the New Testament is quite clear. The passage cited above is decisive as to the apostle's view, and conclusive against the Pelagian theory, while the whole line of argument in the early chapters of the Epistle to the Romans tends to establish the fact that Adam's sin had a far-reaching effect upon mankind, that through it sin gained an entrance into the world and that all his descendants inherited a tendency to sin.2

1 See Wisd. ii. 23 seq.; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33]; 4 Ezra iii. 7, 21 seq.; Apoc. Baruch xvii. 3, xxiii. 4; and cf. Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 165 seq., and Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 136 seq.

2 The question may be raised how far is the Church's doctrine on this subject, and S. Paul's teaching in particular, affected by "critical" views of the Old Testament, and the belief that in Gen. i.-iii. we have a symbolical representation of spiritual truths rather than a literal history. On this subject a valuable letter will be found in the Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 329, and reference may also be made to Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 146, where it is pointed out that the narrative in Genesis is "the typical and summary representation of a series of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half calcined bones can ever reproduce for us. In some way or other, as far back as history goes, and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human race this mysterious seed of sin, which, like other characteristics of the human race, is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong, we can

It may be added, that the conclusion which has forced itself upon the minds of theologians as an inference from the statements of Holy Scripture, that there is a taint in the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, is in remarkable accordance with the teaching of secular philosophers and poets,1 and is but the theological expression of the doctrine which has been not discovered, but formulated by modern science under the name of heredity.

Having set aside the

(c) Original righteousness. Pelagian heresy, the Article proceeds with its account of original sin, and lays down that it is "the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from but vaguely speculate. Whatever it was, we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative-the recognition of the Divine will, the act of disobedience to the wil so recognised, the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedience, and whe may add, perhaps, though here we get into a region of surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part in us, the soul, throu righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have 1 d due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods,,for naturally and inevitably summed up as a group of single incident. Their essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive beliefs we may safely remember that "a thousand years in the sight of God are but as one day." . . . It would be absurd to expect the language of modern science in the prophet who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the sacred books of the Hebrews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelligence and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abundantly justified, then the application which S. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He, too, expresses truth through symbols; and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching may be obsolete, but not before."

1 See the interesting lecture on this subject in Mozley's Lectures and other Theological Papers, p. 148 seq.