The Doctrine of Anselm. This loss of original righteousness was universally regarded as a penal evil. It was the punishment of the first sin of Adam which came equally upon him and upon all his descendants. The ques- tion now is, Wiiat is the moi-al state of a soul destitute of original, righteousness considered as a supernatural gift? It was the differ- ent views taken as to the answer to that question, which gave rise to the conflicting views of the nature and consequences of original sin.
1. Some said that this negative state was itself sinful. Ad- mitting that original sin is simply the loss of original righteous- ness, it was nevertheless truly and properly sin. This was the ground taken by Anselm, the father of the scholastic pliilosophy and theology. In his work, " De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato," he says of children,^ " Quod in illis non est justitia, quam debent habere, non hoc fecit illorum, voluntas personalis, sicut in Adam, sed egestas naturalis, quam ipsa natura accepit ab Adam — facit natura personas infantium peccatrices. Nullam infantibus iiijustitiam super prsedictam nuditatem justitias.^ Peccatum origi- nale aliud intelligere nequeo, nisi ipsam — factam per inobedientiam Adse justitise debitae nuditatem."'^ This original sin, however, even in infants, although purely negative, is nevertheless truly and properly sin. Anselm says, " Omne peccatum est injustitia, et originale peccatum est absolute peccatum, unde sequitur quod est injustitia. Item si Deus non damnat nisi propter injustitiam ; dam- nat autem aliquem propter originale peccatum, ergo non est aliud originale peccatum quam injustitia. Quod si ita est, originale peccatum non est aliud quam injustitia, i. e., absentia debitsD justi- tiae."*
Doctrine of Ahelard.
2. The ground taken by others of the schoolmen was that the loss of original righteousness left Adam precisely in the state in which he was created, and therefore in puris natura/ibus (i. e., in the simple essential attributes of his nature). And as his descend- ants share his fate, they are born in the same state. There is no inherent hereditary corruption, no moral character either good or bad. The want of a supernatm-al gift not belonging to the nature of man, and whicn must be bestowed as a favour, cannot be ac-
1 Cap. xxiii.; Opera, Paris, 1721, p. lOi, B, d.
* Cap. xxiv. ; Ibid. p. 105, A, c. 8 Cap. xxvii.; Ibid. p. 106, A, b.
* Cap. iii. ; Ibid. p. 98, A, e, B, a.
170 PART n. ch. vin. — sin.
counted to men as sin. Original sin, therefore, in the posterity ol Adam can consist in nothing but the imputation to them of liis first transgression. They suffer the punishment of that sin, which pun- ishment is the loss of original righteousness. According to tliis view, original sin \^ poena but not culpa. It is true that the inev- itable consequence of this privation of righteousness is tliat the lower powers of man's nature gain the ascendency over the higlier, and that he grows up in sin. Nevertheless there is no inherent or subjective sin in the new-born infant. There is a natural prone- ness to sin arisincr out of the original and normal constitution of our nature, and tlie absence of original righteousness which was a fre- num, or check by which the lower powers were to be kept in sub- jection. But this being the condition in which Adam came from the hands of his Creator, it cannot be in itself sinful. Sin consists in assent and purpose. And, therefore, until the soul assents to this dominion of its lower nature and deliberately acts in accord- ance with it, it cannot be chargeable with any personal, inherent sin. There is therefore no sin of nature, as distinguished from actual sin. It is true, as the advocates of this tlieory taught, in obedience to the universal faith of the Church and the clear doc- trine of the Bible, that men are born in sin. But this is the guilt of Adam's first sin, and not their own inherent corruption. They admitted the correctness of the Latin version of Romans v. 12, which makes the Apostle say that all men sinned in Adam (m quo omnes peccaverunf). But they understood that passage to teach nothing more than the imputation of Adam's first sin, and not any hereditary inherent corruption of nature. This was the theory of original sin adopted by Abelard, who held that nothing was prop- erly of the nature of sin but an act performed with an evil inten- tion. As there can be no such intention in infants there can be, properly speaking, no sin in them. There is a proneness to sin which he calls vitium ; but sin consists in consent to this incli- nation, and not in the inclination itself. " Vitium itaque est, quo ad peccandum proni efficimur, hoc est inclinamur ad consentiendum ei, quod non convenit, ut illud scilicet faciamus aut dimittamus. Hunc vero consensum proprie peccatum nominamus, hoc est cui- pam animie, qua damnationem meretur."^ He admitted original sin as a punishment, or as the guilt of Adam's sin, but this was 3xternal and not inherent.^ This view of the subject was strenu-
1 Ethica seu liber dictus: scilo se ipsum, cap. iii. ; Opera, Paris, 1859, vol. ii. p. 596
2 In Eputolam ad Eomanos, lib. ii. ; Ibid. vol. ii. p. 238.