ments, as may be seen from the following English version of the Second Article of the Augsburg Confession :—

They also teach that since the fall of Adam, all men, naturally begotten, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without faith towards God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease or fault of origin is truly sin, condemning, and even now bringing eternal death to those who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit.

'They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that the fault of origin is sin, and in order to diminish the glory of the merit and benefits of Christ, maintain that a man can be justified before God by the power of his own reason.'

The similitude between the English and Augsburg forms does not seem much more than the general family likeness which runs through all the Reformed Confessions.

THE MAIN DIVISIONS OF ARTICLE IX.

1. Original sin is defined (A.) negatively, (B.) positively. 2. Its universality and degree.

3. It is in itself deserving of the wrath of God.

4. It remains in the regenerate.

5. Nevertheless, true believers have no condemnation. 6. The indwelling sinful desire, irrespective of indulgence or of action, has the nature or ratio of sin.

The student will do wisely if he carefully collects and considers passages of Scripture, proving these separate propositions. He will thus obtain clear doctrinal conclusions, instead of confusedly gathering the general notion of man's sinfulness.

THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN.

It is assumed that the student is familiar with the Oriental notions of the Gnostics and Manichees of the first three centuries, as to the connexion of moral and spiritual evil with

matter.

It is also assumed that the history of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversies of the fifth century is sufficiently known.

We omit, therefore, further notice of these. But in order to understand the phraseology of this Article and the questions really at issue, we must refer to the schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the received Roman theology. For the position taken up in this and the following doctrinal Articles, although by no means merely negative, is to a great degree one of antagonism to Rome. These Articles are strongly and scripturally constructive and positive; but in their most definite statements the opposite Romish doctrine seems to be held in view. The schoolmen are named in Article XIII.; and indeed it will at once be seen that the Reformers, trained as they were in the scholastic theology, could scarcely avoid writing with a reference, direct or implied, to the terms and principles of that system.

The Summa Theologiæ' of Thomas Aquinas was dominant in the schools before the Reformation. His doctrine of original sin was more plainly expounded by the great Roman Catholic controversialist, Bellarmine, at the close of the sixteenth century; and we shall endeavour to give a simple account of it, as it lies at the basis of many ill-understood

controversies.

It is the less difficult to do so, as those divines, whatever their errors may be, are generally very exact in their definitions. [The most accessible books on the subject will probably be Willet's 'Synopsis Papismi,' and Müller's 'Christian Doctrine of Sin,' Clark's translation.]

In order to arrive at a knowledge of the nature of original sin, these authors discuss what Adam lost by the fall. They assert that the original righteousness in which Adam stood was no part of his nature, but a supernatural gift superadded to it. They say that he was created mortal, but had the superadded gift of immortality. Hence the result of the fall was simply a withdrawal of the superadded gifts, and a reduction of man to the state in which he would have been without them. Bellarmine thus enunciates this theory :-'The state of man after the fall of Adam differs from the state of Adam in what was purely natural to him (in puris naturalibus) no more than a man who is stripped differs from a naked man.

Nor

is human nature worse, if you take away original sin, nor does it labour more with ignorance and infirmity, than it would be and would labour in what is purely natural as it was created.'

The singular comparison used above explains exactly the scholastic idea. Adam was originally (spiritually) naked. He was mortal. He was then clothed with the supernatural gifts of grace and immortality. Upon his fall he was stripped of these, and became spiritually naked and mortal, just as he was created; save that the Almighty now viewed him with displeasure, as a creature who had trifled with and lost precious gifts, and was destitute of that which he ought to have. Thus original sin is not a positive quality or inherent evil disposition, but simply an absence of the original righteousness.

How, then, do these divines deal with a more practical and more formidable question—the most conspicuous and most disastrous feature in man's history-his tendency to sin? On the above theory, this, to which they gave the name of concupiscentia, used also in our Article, was denied to be sin. For if fallen man stood as Adam stood, in all purely natural respects, and was only exposed to wrath as lacking the gifts he had trifled with, then the concupiscence, or tendency to sin, had in it no necessary guilt. For man was in this respect as God had made him, and that could not be a state of guilt.

It may now be seen in what respect baptism was held by these divines to put away original sin. It is manifest that it does not take away the concupiscence. But it was conceivable that it might restore the supernatural gifts lost by the fall. The gift of immortality, indeed, and exemption from earthly suffering were obviously excepted. But the Catechism of the Council of Trent accounts for this by saying that the baptized members must not be in a more exalted condition than Christ their head was; and that infirmities and sufferings lead the Christian to greater heights of virtue and consequent glory than otherwise he could attain.

We are now in a position to refer to the dogma of the Council of Trent on original sin. There was too much divi

1 Part ii. c. ii. Q. 47.

sion of opinion in the Council to allow them to agree upon a definition of original sin itself. But the Fifth Session passed this decree, bearing on some of the principal points in the present Article :—

'If any one denies that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or moreover asserts that the whole is not taken away of that which has the true and proper nature (ratio) of sin: but says that it is only cut down or not imputed; let him be anathema. Nevertheless, this holy Council doth confess and is of opinion that concupiscence, or the fuel of sin, remaineth in the baptized; which being left for the purpose of trial, cannot hurt those who do not consent to it, but manfully through the grace of Christ resist it. . . . . The holy Council declares that the Catholic Church hath never understood that this concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, is called sin because sin is truly and properly in the regenerate, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. If anyone hold a contrary opinion, let him be anathema.'

This doctrine is substantially that of Aquinas and Bellarmine, but more cautiously worded.

Looking now at our Article, we see the full force of its several parts. It first guards against Pelagianism. It then proceeds to define original sin in language intentionally opposed to the Scholastic and Tridentine doctrine. It omits the question wherein the original righteousness of man consisted. It asserts that original sin is a vitium et depravatio of nature in every man. This must be widely different from the mere lack of superadded righteousness, the privatio of the scholastics. It says that man has departed in no slight degree, but quam longissime, from original righteousness. It says that this infection of nature remains in the regenerate. It further asserts, in opposition to the Roman dogma, that the concupiscentia itself, apart from indulgence, has the nature ratio) of sin. It omits the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, herein agreeing with the Confession of Augsburg, as well as the Helvetic, Saxon, and Belgic Confessions. On the other hand, the Confession of Faith of

the Assembly of Divines at Westminster (which is the authorised Confession of the Established Church of Scotland) asserts this plainly (c. vi. 3):

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.'

...

The series of doctrinal discourses by Bullinger, known as his Decades, were enjoined as a subject of study upon the less educated clergy in Elizabeth's time. From Dec. iii. s. 4 the following passage is selected on the sinfulness of concupiscence: Concupiscence is a motion or affection of the mind, which of our corrupt nature doth lust against God and His law, and stirreth us up to wickedness, although the consent or deed itself doth not presently follow upon our conceit. . . . Wherefore that evil and unlawful affection, which is of our natural corruption and lieth hid in our nature, but betrayeth itself in our hearts against the pureness of God's law and majesty, is that very sin which in the tenth commandment is condemned. For although there be some which think that such motions, diseases, blemishes, and affections of the mind are no sins, yet God, by forbidding them in this law, doth flatly condemn them. But if any man doubt of this exposition, let him hear the word of the Apostle, who saith: "I knew not sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust. Without the law sin was dead: I once lived without law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I was dead." And again: “The affection of the flesh is death, but the affection of the spirit is life and peace: because the affection of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not obedient to the law of God, neither can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." The affection of concupiscence, therefore, doth condemn us; or, as I should rather say, we are worthily condemned by the just judgment of God for our concupiscence, which doth every hour and moment bewray itself in the thoughts of our hearts.'

The Homily Of the Misery of Mankind' sets forth from

G