« הקודםהמשך »
sin, or the state of evil, whither in him they are devolved ; yet baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ, and he gives it more ways than one, to them that desire baptism, to them that die for Christianity; and the church, even in Origen's time, and before that, did account the babes, that died in Bethlehem by the sword of Herod, to be saints; and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of.
And therefore St. Bernard, and many others, do suppose, that the want of baptism is supplied by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. To which purpose the eighty-seventh epistle of St. Bernard is worth the reading. But this I add, that those who affirmed that infants without actual baptism could not be saved, affirmed the same also of them, if they wanted the holy eucharist, as is to be seen in Paulinus, epigr. 6. the writer of Hypognosticūn,' lib. 5. 8. St. Austin, hom. 13. serm. 8. de Verbis Apostoli; and the one hundred and seventh epistle to Vitalis.
And since no church did ever enjoin to ony catechumen, any penance or repentance for original sin, it seems horrible and unreasonable, that any man can be damned for that, for which no mạn is bound to repent.
The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole Matter.
The sum of all is this. 18. I. ORIGINAL sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects.
II. It brings death and the evils of this life.
III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us, bring in a flood of passions wbich are hard to be bridled, or mortified.
IV. It hath left us in pure naturals, disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had.
V. It deprives us of all title to heaven or supernatural happiness, that is, it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life, nor title to a heavenly.
VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence, and makes it much worse.
Thus far I admit and explicate this Article. But all that I desire of the usual propositions which are variously taught now-a-days, is this.
I. Original sin is not an inherent evil; not a sin properly, but metonymically; that is, it is the effect of one sin, and the cause of many; a stain, but no sin.
II. It does not destroy our liberty, which we had naturally.
III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning...
IV. It does not damn any infant to the eternal pains of hell.
And now how consonant my explication of the article is . to the first and best antiquity, besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it, will appear by the following authorities, speaking to the other parts of it, and to the whole question.
St. Ignatius the martyr, in his epistle to the Magnesians, hath these words: Έαν ευσεβή τις, άνθρωπος θεου έστιν· έαν δε ασεβή τις, άνθρωπος του διαβόλου" ουκ από της φύσεως, αλλ' απο tñs łautoū young yivóuevoç : “If a man be a pious man, he is a man of God: if he be impious, he is of the devil: not made so by nature, but by his own choice and sentenceP;" by which words he excludes nature, and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil; that is, we are in fault : but not Adam, so as we are.
And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this, or to infirm the force of these words; and they who would fain have alleged him to contrary purposes, cite him calling Adam's sin malaiàv dvoréßelav, the old iniquity;' which appellative is proper enough, but of no efficacy in this question.
Dionysius the Areopagite (if he be the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) does very well explicate this article: Την ανθρωπείαν φύσιν αρχήθεν από των θείων αγαθών ανοήτως, εξολισθήσασαν η πολυπαθεστάτη ζωη διαδέχεται και του φθοροTTOLOŪ Oavátov trépas. “When in the beginning human nature p St. Ignatius.
4 Dionysius Areopag. cap. 3. part. 3..
foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it, it was then entered into a life of passions, and the end of the corruption of death.” This sentence of his differs not from that of St. Chrysostom before alleged; for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall, and was disrobed of his aids, he grew passionate, and peevish, and tempted, and sick, and died. This is all his account of Adam's story: and it is a very true one. But the writer was of a later date, not much before St. Austin's time, as it is supposed; but a learned and a catholic believerr.
19. Concerning Justin Martyr, I have already given this account, that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin; but in his dialogue with Tryphon the Jew,' he gives no account of original sin but this, that “ Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it, but for the sake of mankind, which by Adam fell into death, and the deception of the serpent, besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety.”—So that the effect of Adam's sin was death, and being abused by the devil; for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception, and death, and to redeem us from our impiety, Christ was born and died. But all this meddles not with any thing of the present questions; for to this all interests, excepting the Pelagians' and Socinians', will subscribe. It is material which is spoken by him, or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox;' Ουδείς πεφυκώς αμαρτάνειν ήάνομείν, δς ούχ ήμαρτεν ή ουχ ηνόμησεν. Πέφυκε δε αμαρτάνειν ο κατά την αυθαίρετον προαίρεσιν άγων εαυτόν εις το πράττειν ά βούλεται, είτε αγαθα είτε φαύλα. Το δε βρέφος, άτε ούπω όν της τοιαύτης δυνάμεως, δηλον ότι Oudè Tépukev duaprávelv: "There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly, but hath sinned and done wickedly. But he is by nature born to sin, who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will, whether it be good or bad. But an infant, as being not endued with any such power, it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sins.”—These words, when they had been handled as men pleased, and turned to such senses as they thought they could escape by, at last they appear to be the words of one, who understood nothing of original sin, ? Justin Martyr.
s Quest. 88.
as it is commonly explicated at this day. For all that this author (for it was indeed some later catholic author, but not Justin) did know of original sin, was that which he relates in the answer to the one hundred and second question.
Περιτεμνόμεθα δε και ημείς τη περιτομή του Χριστου δια του βαπτίσματος, εκδυόμενοι τον 'Αδαμ, δι' ον αμαρτωλοί γεγονότες τεθνήκαμεν, και ενδυόμενοι τον Χριστόν, δι' ών δικαιωθέντες ανιστάμεθα εκ των νεκρών ενώ φησιν ο Απόστολος) περιετμήθητε περιτομήν αχειροποίητον τη απεκδύσει του σώματος υμών. «We also are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ by baptism, putting off Adam, by whom we being made sinners did die, and putting on Christ, by whom being justified, we are risen from the dead : in whom (saith the Apostle) we were circumcised with the circumcision which is made without hands, while you have put off your body.”—That is, Adam's sin made us to become sinners, that is, was inputed to us, so that in him we die; but by Christ being justified we are made alive; that is, in him we are admitted to another life, a life' after our resurrection; and this is by baptism ;
for there we die to Adam and live to Christ, we are initiated in a new birth to a new and more perfect state of things. But all this leaves infants in a state of so much innocence, that they are not formally guilty of a sin, but imperfect and insufficient to righteousness, and every one hath his liberty left him to do as he pleaset' so far is affirmed by the author of these answers. But the sentence of Justin Martyr in this article may best be conjectured by his discourse, at large undertaking to prove την προαιρεσιν ελευθεραν προς το φεύγειν τα αισχρα και αιρείσθαι τα καλά, « a freedom of election to fly evil things, and to choose that which is good;" set down in his second Apology for the Christians.
Theophilus Antiochenus affirms that which destroys the new palvóueva, about Adam's perfection and rare knowledge in the state of innocence. Τη δε ούση ηλικία ο Αδάμ έτι νήπιος ήν, διο ούπω εδύνατο την γνωσιν κατ' αξίαν χωρείν. “Adam in that age was yet as an infant, and therefore did not understand that secret, viz. that the fruit which he ate, had in it nothing but knowledge:” and a little after, reckoning the evil consequents of Adam's sin, he names these only,
i Quest. 88.
Tovos, odúvn kai tò tédos Dávuros, "grief, sorrow, and death at lastu."
20. Clemens of Alexandria, having affirmed órı púset pièv επιτήδειοι γεγόναμεν προς αρετήν, that “by nature we are born apt to virtue, not that we have virtue from our birth, but that we are apt to require it from thence*,” takes opportunity to discuss this question, whether Adam was formed perfect or imperfect ?- If imperfect, how comes it to pass that the works of God, especially man, should be imperfect? If perfect, how came he to break the commandments?'_He answers, that Adam was not made perfect in his constitution, but prepared indeed for virtue. Ημας δε εξ ημών αυτων βουλεταισώζεσθαι αυτή ούν φύσις ψυχης εξ εαυτής ορμαν. For “God would have us by ourselves, that is, by our own choice, to be saved: for it is the nature of the soul to be driven and stirred up by itself.”—Many more things to the same purpose he affirms in perfect contradiction to them, who believe Adam's sin so to have debauched our faculties, that we have lost all our powers of election : our powers of election grow stronger, not weaker, according as our knowledge increases. Touto nv απανδρούμενον το επ' αυτω κείμενον. «That which was in Adam (meaning his free will), that was it which grew with the increase of a many.” Therefore it was not lost by Adam. But more pertinent to the present questions are these words: * An innocent martyr suffers like an infant.' TÒ výtovou
προημαρτηκός, ή ενεργώς μεν ημαρτηκός ουδ' εν εαυτο ; « An infant neither committed actual sin, or sin in himself; neither hath he sinned beforehand ? ;” that is, properly in Adam, to whose sin he gave no consent; for else there can be no antithesis or opposition in the parts of his distinction; "he sinned not actually in himself,”-being one member; the other ponuaprnKÒS, or“sinning before,”—being opposed to actual sin, évępyws or év avto, “in himself,”-must mean original and in another.' And this he also expressly affirms: Asyérwoav nuiv που έπόρνευσεν το γενηθέν παιδίον, ή πως υπό την 'Αδάμ υποπέπτωκεν, άραν το μηδέν ενέργασανα. When Tatianus and the Encratites did design to prove marriage to be unlawful, because it produced nothing but sinners; and to that purpose
u Theophilus Antiochenus ad Autolycam, 1. 2.
å Pag. 468.