turn] .... non solum voluntarlum atque possibile uncle libe- rum est abstinere ; verum etiam necessarium peccatum, unde absti- nere Hberum uon est, quod jam non solum peccatum, sed etiam poena peccati est." ^ Spiritual death (^. e., original sin or inherent corrup- tion), says Wiggers, is, according to Augustine, the special and prin- cipal penalty of Adam's first ti'ansgression, which penalty has passed on all men.^ This is in exact accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, who says: " In Adam all die," 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; and that a sentence of condemnation (Kpt/xa ei? KaraKpt/za) for one otFence passed on all men, Rom. v. 16, 17. This Augustine clung to as a Scriptural doctrine, and as a historical fact. This, however, is a doctrine which men have ever found it hard to believe, and a fact which they have ever been slow to admit. Pelagius said : ^ " Nulla ratione concedi ut Deus, qui propria peccata remittit, imputet aliena." And Julian vehemently exclaims, " Amolire te itaque cum tali Deo tuo de Ecclesiarum medio : non est ipse, cui Patriarchfe, cui Prophetse, cui Apostoli crediderunt, in quo spera- vit et sperat Ecclesia primitivorum, quae conscripta est in coelis : non est ipse quern credit judicem rationabilis creatura ; quern Spiritus sanctus juste judicaturum esse denuntiat. Nemo pruden- tium, pro tali Domino suum unquam sanguinem fudisset : nee enim merebatur dilectionis affectum, ut suscipiendae pro se onus im{)oneret passionis. Postremo iste quem inducis, si esset uspiam, reus convinceretur esse non Deus ; judicandus a vero Deo meo, non judicaturus pro Deo." * To this great objection Augustine gives different answers. (1.) He refers to Scriptural examples in which men have been punished for the sins of others. (2.) He appeals to the fact that God visits the sins of parents upon their children. (3.) Sometimes he says we should rest satisfied with the assurance that the judge of all the earth must do right, whether we can see the justice of his ways or not. (4.) At others he seems to adopt the realistic doctrine that all men were in Adam, and that his sin was their sin, being the act of generic humanity. As Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and was tithed in him, so we were in the loins of Adam, and sinned in him. (5.) And, finally, he urges that as we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, it is not incongruous that we should be condemned for the sin of Adam.^ It will be observed that some of these grounds are inconsistent with
1 Opus /mperfeclum, v. 59; Works, edit. Benedictines, vol. x., p. 2026, b.
2 Ariffustiiilsmus unci Pelagianismus, edit. Hamburg, 1333, vol. i. p. 104.
" A/>wl Aii;iH:^liuuia i/c /'(( r,,t,,, uiii i/t'- i:i^ f: /Crini.i.^fhtf, III. ill. 5; Works, vol. X. p. 289, a. ♦ Opus hiiperfeclum contra Julianu/u, i. 50; Work:<,vo\. x. p. 1501, a, b. See MiinscL'o.r's Dogmengesckidite^ vol. iv. p. 195.
164 PART n. ch. vni. — sin.
others- If one be valid, the others are invahd. If we reconcile the condemnation of men on account of the sin of Adam, on the ground that he was our representative, or that he sustained the relation which all parents bear to their children, we renounce the ground of a realistic union. If the latter theory be true, then Adam's sin was our act as truly as it was his. If we adopt the representative theory, his act was not our act in any other sense than that in which a representative acts for his constituents. From this it is plain, (1.) That Augustine had no clear and settled conviction as to the nature of the union between Adam and his race which is the ground of the imputation of his sin to his posterity, any more than he had about the origin of the soul ; and (2.) That no particular theory on that point, whether the representative or realistic, can properly be made an element of Augustinianisra, as a historical and church form of doctrine.
§ 6. Doctrine of the Church of Home.
This is a point very difficult to decide. Romanists themselves are as much at variance as to what their Church teaches concern- ing original sin as those who do not belong to their communion. The sources of this difficulty are, (1.) First, the great diversity of opinions on this subject prevailing in the Latin Church before the authoritative decisions of the Council of Trent and of the Romish Catechism. (2.) The ambiguity and want of precision or fulness in the decisions of that council. (3.) The different interpretations given by prominent theologians of the true meaning of the Triden- tine canons.
Diversity of Sentiment in the Latin Church.
As to the first of these points it may be remarked that there were mainly three conflicting elements in the Latin Church before the Reformation, in relation to the whole subject of sin. ^1.) The doctrine of Augustine. (2.) That of the Semi-Pela- gians, and (3.) That of those of the schoolmen who endeavoured to find a middle ground between the other two systems. The doctrine of Augustine, as exhibited above, was sanctioned by the Latin Church, and pi'onounced to be the true orthodox faith. But even dui'ing the lifetime of Augustine, and to a greater extent in the following century, serious departures from his system began to prevail. These departures related to all the intimately connected doctrines of sin, grace, and predestination. Pelagianism was universally disclaimed and condemned. It was
§6.] doctrd:e of the cnuiicH of rome. 165
admitted tliat the race of man fell in Adam ; that his sin affected injuriously his posterity as well as himself; that men are born in 1 state of alienation from God ; that they need the power of the Holv Spirit in order to their restoration to holiness. But what is tl)e nature of original sin, or of that depravity or deterioration of our nature derived from Adam ? And, What are the remains of the divine image which are still preserved, or what is the power for good which fallen men still possess ? And What is to be understood by the grace of God and the extent of its influence? And What is the ground on which God brings some and not others to the enjoyment of eternal life ? These were questions ■which received very different answers. Augustine, as we have seen, answered the first of these questions by saying that original sin consists not only in the loss of original righteousness, but also tn concupiscence, or disorder, or corruption of nature, which is truly 4nd properly sin, including both guilt and pollution. The second question lie answered by saying that fallen man has no power to effect what is spiritually good ; he -^an neither regenerate himself, prepare himself for regeneration, nor cooperate with the grace of God in that work. These principles necessarily lead to the doctrines of efficacious or irresistible grace and of sovereign election, as was setn and universally admitted. It was these necessary consequences, ratner than the principles themselves, which awakened opposition. But to get rid of the consequences it was necessary that the prin- ciples should be refuted. This opposition to Augustinianism arose with the monks and prevailed principally among them. This, as Giestler^ says, was very natural. Augustine taught that man could do nothing good of himself, and could acquire no merit in the sight of God. The monks believed that they could do not only all, but more than all that God required of them. Else why submit to their vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience ? The party thus formed against the orthodox or established doctrine was called Semi-Pelagian, because it held a middle ground between Pelagius and Augustine.
The Semi-Pelagians. The principal leaders of this party were John Cassianus, an Eastern monk and disciple of Chrysostom ; Vincentius Lerinensis, and Faustus of Rhegium. The most important work of Cassian was entitled " Collationes Patrum," which is a collection of dialogues on various subjects. He was a devout rather than a speculative writer, relying on the authority of Scripture for the
1 Kirchengeschichle, vol. vi. p. 350.
16G PART II. Cn. VIII. — SIN.