_The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church by Heinrich Schmid, D.D. Third edition, revised Translated from German and Latin by Charles A. Hay, D.D. and Henry E. Jacobs, D.D. Copyright 1875 and 1889, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs Copyright 1899, Henry E. Jacobs and Charles E. Hay Reprinted 1961 by Augsburg Publishing House_ Pages 231-268 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER II. OF THE STATE OF CORRUPTION. "The State of Corruption is that condition into which man vol- untarily precipitated himself by his own departure from the chief good, thus becoming both wicked and miserable. QUEN. (II, 48). This state was brought about by sin, and we have, there- fore, here to treat: (1) Of sin in general. (2) Of the par- ticular sin by which this state was brought about, as well as of the state itself. (3) Of the actual sins proceeding form it; and finally, (4) Of the powers yet remaining in man after the Fall, or, of the question to what extent man yet possesses freedom of the will. PARA. 25. Of Sin in General. According to 1 John 3:4, sin is every deviation from a law of God (HOLL., 488: "Sin is a deviation from the divine Law"), whether that law be written in our hearts, or be communicated externally by positive precept. [1] It can proceed only from a being endowed with reason and free will. But from this general conception of sin it does not, therefore, necessarily fol- low, that every such act as may be a deviation from the Law of God must be performed with the consciousness and purpose that such a deviation from the Law of God shall take place. [2] God is in no sense the author of sin; He did not create sin in man, since of all that was created, it is said that it was good (Gen. 1:31): neither did He decree that at any particu- lar time man should become a sinner. He has neither urged man on to that which is sinful (James 1:13), nor did He ap- prove of sin when it entered. Much rather does He hate it at all times (Ps. 5:5; Zach. 8:17; 1 John 2:16.)[3] The origin of sin lies, therefore, only in the will of the creature who, of -----------------End of Page 231--------------------------------- his own accord, departed from God, and acted in opposition to the divine command. [4] And here Satan made the begin- ning, and then led man also astray to sin. [5] The immediate consequence of sin is that the sinner, who broke the commandment which he was bound to obey, in- curred guilt which deserves punishment. HOLL. (502): "The consequence of sin is responsibility for guilt and liability to punishment." [6] The punishment is partly temporal, partly eternal. [1] BR. (388 sq.): "By the Law is to be understood the eternal and immutable wisdom and decision of God concerning those things which belong or do not belong to a rational creature, as such, united with His will, that they may or may not be done." [2] HOLL. (497): "A sinner is a rational creature, endowed with a free will, and subject to the divine Law, who departs from it, by doing what it forbids, and neglecting what it enjoins." (501): "That which is voluntary (to ekousion), does not enter into the definition of sin generically considered. Sin is called voluntary, either subjectively, as far as it inheres in the will, or effectively, according as it proceeds from a deliberate volition. Not every sin is voluntary in the latter mode. Sin is called voluntary, either formally, which is committed by one's own volition, or virtually, which was voluntary in the root and stock of the human race, from which it has been propagated to posterity, whose will would have been the same as that in Adam, had they lived at the same time with him" [i.e., sin may be voluntary, when not volitionary] [3] MEL. (Loc. Th., 56): "God is not the cause of sin, nor is sin a thing contrived or ordained by Him, but it is a horrible de- struction of the divine work and order." CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 146): "The explanation also must be noted, of what is intended when it is said that God is not the cause of sin, viz., that He neither desires or approves of sin, neither does He influence the will to sin. For some understand that He is not the author of sin in such a sense, as in the beginning to create it, or to have it in Himself, or to produce it through Himself, but that men sin nevertheless by the will of God, and that God pro- duces sins not only permissively, but also efficiently, in men and by men; yet He is not, in their view, therefore to be called the author of sin. Therefore is added, as if for the sake of explana- tion: `author and cause of sin.'" QUEN. (II, 49): "God is in no manner the efficient cause of sin. Neither in part nor in whole, neither directly nor indirectly, ---------------------End of Page 232------------------------------- neither accidentally nor per se, whether in the form of Adam's transgression or in that of any other sin, is God or can He be called, the cause or author of sin. God is not the cause of sin, (1) physically and per se, because thus the evil or sin has no cause; (2) not morally, by commanding, persuading, or approv- ing because He does not desire sin, but hates it; nor (3) by way of accident, because nothing can happen to God either by chance or fortuitously. This conflicts with the divine wisdom, prescience, goodness, holiness, and independence, as is proved from Ps. 5:5; 45:7; Is. 65:12; Zach. 8:17; 1 John 1:5; James 1:13, 17." How God stands related to sin was shown in the discussion on the doctrine of concurrence. [4] QUEN. (II, 49): "Whatever want of conformity to Law (anomia) there ever is in a rational agent must be ascribed to the free will of the creature itself, as being spontaneously deficient in acting. Ps. 5:5; Hos. 13:9; Matt. 23:37. A rational agent, or creature, which possesses reason, and the power of knowing those things which the Law given either commands or forbids, is properly said to be the cause of sin, viz., the will of the devil and of man. But this rational agent ought to be viewed, not in respect of any real influence, but in respect of a deficiency; for sin has rather a deficient than an efficient cause."* [5] CONF. AUG. (19): "Concerning the cause of sin, they teach that, although God creates and preserves nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, namely, the devil and impious men, which without the assistance of God turns itself away from God." CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 148): "The devil is the first author of sin: (1) because by his own free will he himself turned away from God; (2) because he is the cause of sin in the human race in this way, that he deceived and seduced Eve in the state of integrity, so that she departed from God." [6] HOLL. (502): "Guilt is a moral foulness or deformity, re- sulting from an act inconsistent with the Law and unworthy of a rational creature, and inhering in the sinner as a shameful stain. Responsibility for guilt (reatus culpae) is an oblicgation, by which man, on account of an act inconsistent with the moral Law, is held, as if bound, under sin and its blemish, so that in consequence of this act, the sinner is regarded and pronounced detestable." "The divine punishment is a grievous evil by which God, the offended Judge, punishes the guilt before incurred and not yet forgiven, so as to display His justice and majesty, and vindicate from contempt the authority of the Law. Liability to punishment --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Cf. Chap. IV, Note 13. ------------------------End of Page 233-------------------------------- (reatus poenae), is an obligation by which the sinner is held bound, by God, the offended Judge, to endure the punishment of the unforgiven guilt. Guilt differs from punisment. The former precedes, the latter follows. Guilt deserves punishment; punish- ment is due to guilt, and is, as it were, its wages. Rom. 6:23. Guilt proceeds from the will; the will of the sinner revolts from punishment. The sinner contracts guilt by his acts; he endures punishment by suffering." PARA. 26. Man's First Transgression, and the State thereby produced. viz., Original Sin. It was the first of the human family who committed the first sin. These, seduced by Satan under the form of a serpent, of their own free will, transgressed the prohibition of God (Gen. 1:16, 17) to eat of the tree of knowledge. [1] HOLL. (507): "The first sin of men is the transgression of the Law of Para- dise, by which our first parents, having been persuaded by the devil, and having abused the freedom of the will, violated the divine prohibition concerning the not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and brought down upon themselves and their posterity, the divine image having been lost, a great guilt, and the liability to temporal and eter- nal punishment." [2] In consequence of this transgression, our first parents burdened themselves with a guilt which de- served punishment; therefore also God immediately inflicted upon them (Gen. 2:17) the punishment threatened in the event of transgression. [3] The consequence of their sin then was, that their whole relation to God, and their corporeal, spiritual, and moral state, were changed. The state of right- eousness, above described, ceased to exist, and, in its place, was introduced a state of moral depravity, [4] which must therefore be transmitted to all their posterity, since they who are begotten after the common course of nature cannot be in- troduced into a different state from that of their parents at the time when they beget them; so that the first sin, in its results, affects not only our first parents, but also all their posterity. [5] Since, therefore, they incurred the divine wrath by reason of sin, so also are all mankind, descended from them, in a similar state; and that, too, for two reasons: first, because the state of depravity, which they have derived from their first -----------------------End of Page 234----------------------------- parents, renders its subjects the objects of God's wrath; [6] secondly, because all the descendants of Adam are represented and contained in him, as the representative of the human fam- ily--therefore, that which was done by Adam can be regarded as the act of all, the consequences of which also must be borne by all, so that Adam's sin also is imputed to his posterity, i.e., it is regarded as their own sin, because they are all repre- sented in Adam. [7] The state of depravity which followed Adam's transgression, and which now belongs to our first par- ents, as well as to all their posterity, is designated by the ex- pression Original Sin. [8] HOLL. (518): "Original Sin is the thorough corruption of human nature, which, by the Fall of our first parents, is deprived of original righteousness, and is prone to every evil." [9] According to its single parts, it is described, (1) as the lack of the Original Righteousness, which ought to exist in man; (2) as carnal concupiscence, or inclination to evil. [10] In the place of original holiness and purity, there came directly the opposite, a state thoroughly sinful and de- sirous of that which is evil, which in itself is sin, so that, in consequence of this constant propensity to evil, and not origi- nally an account of actual transgressions proceeding from it, man is an object of the divine displeasure. [11] This depraved state, then, is not only the foundation and fountain of all ac- tual transgressions, but also has, as its consequence, the wrath of God and temporal and eternal punishment. [12] Concerning this state, finally, it must be asserted, that it is natural to us in that sense in which this is said of original righteousness in the state of integrity. Were this state differ- ent, man would not cease to be man, and hence it does not constitute man's essence, but is connected with the essence, or the nature of man as he is now born, and that too in the most intimate and inseparable manner; and as no man is now born, except in that depraved state, so also this state can never be lost by man, as long as he lives on the earth. Man, when he becomes a partaker of the Holy Ghost, can indeed refuse obe- dience to his evil propensity; and, when redemption through Christ is apprehended by faith, he is also freed from the con- sequences of sin, i.e., the wrath of God and punishment; but yet the evil inclination to sin always remains in him. All ----------------End of Page 235----------------------------- this is expressed in the adjuncts of original sin, which QUEN. thus enumerates (II, 62): 1. Natural Inherence, Heb. 12:1; Rom. 7:21, which, there- fore, is not a substance, but an accident. [13] 2. Natural transmissibility, Gen. 5:3; Job 14:4; Ps. 51:6; John 3:6; Eph. 2:3. [14] 3. Duration (a tenacity or obstinate inherence during life, Rom. 7:17; Heb. 12:1). [15] [1] QUEN. (II, 51): "The first sin in the human race is the voluntary apostasy of our first parents from God their Creator, by which, having been seduced by the devil, they transgressed, of their own accord, both the general divine and internal law im- pressed upon their mind, and the particular external prohibition concerning the not eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Concerning the existence of this sin, the his- tory contained in Gen. 3, does not permit us to doubt. By Paul it is called the transgression of Adam, Rom. 5:14, because he transgressed the divine precept by eating of the forbidden fruit. The Fall is ascribed to Adam by way of eminence, both because he was the head of the woman, and also because he was the begin- ning and root of the human race, from whom, as the source, sin descended to posterity. For a like reason it is called a transgres- sion by one, Rom. 5:15, 17, and 18, where by one man the Apostle understands Adam particularly, so, however, as not entirely to ex- clude Eve." [HUTT. (312): "It is noteworthy that the Apostle does not say `of (ex) one man,' but `by (per) one man,' thus im- plying that the principal efficient cause was Satan."] Hence arise the following definitions: QUEN. (II, 51): (a) "The external first and principal (but re- mote) cause of this sin is Satan, acting here, not by internal impulse, nor by external violence (for each is repugnant to the integrity of the state in which man was originally created), but by mere exter- nal moral suasion. John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9. (b) "The instrumental cause is a true and natural serpent, but possessed by the devil, Gen. 3:1, 14 (not a mere serpent, but one possessed by the devil, as is manifest from the conversation and discourse with Eve, and also from the punishment, Gen. 3:15. For the bruising of the serpent's head by the seed of the woman, which was to follow, has respect, not to a natural, but to the in- fernal serpent)." (c) "The internal and directly efficient cause is the intellect and ------------------End of Page 236------------------------------------ will of the first man, not from any internal defect therein, which could not exist in an unfallen state, but by way of accident, in conseqence of his wandering and departure from God, through seduction from without. (Man did not fall in consequence of any absence or denial of any special grace, nor from the presence of any internal languor and natural defect, but through the accidental abuse of his liberty, while his will yielded to the external persua- sion and seduction of the devil, and interrupted the gracious influence of God.)" (d) The order and mode of the seduction are the following: HOLL. (511): "Eve was first and immediately seduced by the devil (HOLL. (505): Eve sinned first, not because she was more feeble in intellect than Adam, but because she was more yielding in will), while Adam was drawn mediately, and by the persuasion of the woman, into the same sin, and thus the fall of Adam is referred also to the devil, as the first author of sin." In reference to the passage, 1 Tim. 2:14, QUEN. remarks (II, 53): "These words are not to be understood of the seduction simply, but of the mode and order of the seduction; seduction is either external, through the address of the serpent from without, or internal, through the sug- gestion of Satan from within. In the former sense Eve only, and not Adam, was seduced." (e) The particular sinful acts which the transgression involves are: HOLL. (510): "(a) on the part of the intellect, a want of faith (incredulitas), (Eve hesitated between the Word of God, Gen. 2:17, and the word of the devil, Gen. 3:4); (b) on the part of the will, selfishness and pride, Gen. 3:5; (c) on the part of the sensuous appetite, an inordinate desire for the forbidden fruit, Gen. 3:6, from which came forth the external act forbidden by the law of Paradise." [2] HOLL. (509): "Our first parents, in their Fall, immediately violated the positive law given in Paradise, forbidding to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowleddge of good and evil; mediately and really by their disobedience they broke through the restraints of the entire moral Law. The intention of the positive Law was a trial or test of obedience, which, as due to God, the whole moral Law demands. But he who fears not to transgress one precept of the Law, will not blush to violate the remainder, since they have the same author and the same obligatory force." [3] HOLL. (512, 513): "The consequences of Adam's fall are guilt and punisment. Punisment, like an inseparable compan- ion, follows closely upon guilt. God, in His holiness, has threat- ened death to man, if he transgresses the Law which was given ----------------End of Page 237---------------------------------- him. Gen. 2:17. By death was meant spiritual, corporeal, and eternal death. Spiritual death, the root of all evil, is the immedia- ate consequence of the first sin. For, as soon as man turned his heart away from the divine Law, he deprived himself of spiritual union with God, who is the life of the soul, and thus, having been deserted by God, he died spiritually. This spiritual death brought with it the loss of the divine image, the entire corruption of the whole human nature, and the loss of free will in spiritual things. The death of the body follows spiritual death, or the death of the soul, including all the diseases and miseries by which man is sur- rounded from without. Whether also are to be referred the severe and burdensome labor which must be constantly endured by the man, Gen. 3:17, and the painful throes of parturition in the woman, Gen. 3:16. Although our first parents did not suffer the death of the body as soon as they fell, nevertheless from that time they became subject to death, since this is the wages of sin, Rom. 6:23. Eternal death is a perpetual exclusion from the beatific enjoyment of God, united with constant and most excruciating torments, which, by the force of the threatening annexed to the divine Law, Adam and all his posterity must have suffered, unless Jesus Christ, the Re- deemer of the human race and the Restorer of the lost image of God, had interposed." [4] CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 227): "For this, too, is the misery of Original Sin, that not only the image itself of God was lost, but also the knowledge of God was nearly extinguished." KG. (80): "The effects of the first-sin, in respect of our first parents, are: the total loss of the divine image, some fragments, indeed, or vestiges remaining; the most profound depravity of the whole nature; ex- posure to punishment expressed in the penalty annexed to the law of Paradise; the griefs and miseries of this life; and finally death itself." [5] GRH. (IV, 315): "We must not regard the sin of our first parents and its consequences, as if they had respect only to them, and did not in any way affect us; because aftewards Adam begat a son, in his own image and likeness, Gen. 5:3. As he was, such also did he beget his children, despoiled of the image of God, destitute of original righteousness, subject to sin, to the wrath of God, to death and damnation. Adam lived, and we all lived in him. Adam perished, and we all perished in him. As when parents lose the possession of a feudal benefit, the male chil- dren also lose it, because the parents received it not only for them- selves, but also for their children; so also our first parents, having been created in the image of God, had received those gifts which -------------------End of Page 238------------------------------------- were bestowed by the goodness of God, like a deposit, to be faith- fully guarded for themselves and their posterity; thus also, by sinning, they lost them, not only for themselves, but for all their posterity." HOLL. (523): "Our first parents are the proximate cause of this original blemish, from whose impure nature the original stain has flowed into our hearts. Everthing follows the seeds of its own nature. No black crow ever produces a white dove, nor ferocious lion a gentle lamb; and no man polluted with inborn sin ever begets a holy child." [6] BR. (403) says, referring to Rom 5:12: "Therefore we must say that all sinned in one, inasmuch as, he having sinned, it came to pass that all who should be naturally descended from him would necessarily be born with sin, and thus every one on account of his own sin would become, in his very birth, liable to death, see Eph. 2:3; so that, when all men are said to be children of wrath, the cause of this guilt is taken for granted, namely, be- cause all by nature are sinners. For to be a son of wrath is the same as to be liable to divine wrath, and worthy of punishment, on account of the violation of the Law, to be inflicted by God, the vindicator of the Law. Therefore, one could not be by nature a child of wrath, unless he were polluted by sin in his own nature or by the corruption of his nature." But BR. also adds (414): "It is not necessary, neither, perhaps, is it wise, that we should pryingly inquire how God could so impute the sin of our first parents to their posterity, not yet in existence, that they should for this reason necessarily be born destitute of original righteous- ness, and sinners. For it is enough that the fact (to oti) is re- vealed, although the explanation of it (to pos) be unknown." GRH. (IV, 316): "Therefore that sin (of Adam) is not in all respects foreign to us, because Adam did not sin as a private man, but as the head of the whole human race; and as human nature was communicated through him, so also natural corruption was similarly propagated"...(327): "Because, therefore, all who are born in the natural and common course of generation are under sin, so also all are by nature children of wrath, liable to death and damnation; for it is not possible that God should not be angry at sin." [7] HOLL. (513): "The first sin of Adam, since he is regarded as the common parent, head, root, and representative of the whole race, is truly and justly imputed by God, for guilt and punishment, to all his pos- terity." By the sin that is imputed to us is understood (QUEN., II, 111): "That disobedience by which the first parents of the ----------------------End of Page 239----------------------------- human race turned themselves away from God," etc. Therefore, also, it is said (II, 53): "Not only our first parents were the sub- ject of the first sin, but also all their posterity to be propagated by natural generation. For Adam and Eve were substitutes for the whole human race, inasmuch as they ought to be regarded as both the natural (i.e., seminal) and also the moral source of the human race, namely, of the entire progeny in nature and grace. Hence the apostle properly says, Rom. 5:12, eph' o, in whom, viz., in the first man, all sinned, or in that, because that, one sinned, all sinned, viz., in Adam, who represented the persons of all his posterity; and v. 19, `by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.' That is to say, we have been made sinners through the sin of Adam, not by mere interpretation, nor even by limitation, but by the imputation of real guilt, and the propagation of natural de- pravity, and the participation of an actual crime. And thus the proximate cause why, when the first man sinned, all his posterity sinned, is the existence of the whole human species in the person of our first parent, Rom. 5:12. For our first parents were then considered not only as the first individuals of the human race, but also, as the true root, stock, and source of the whole human race, which in them could both stand and fall. Hence we are said to have been in the loins of our first parents." Id. (II, 111): "The first sin is considered--I. With regard to Adam himself, who by one transgression involved all his posterity in crime, in guilt, in punishment; in so far, namely, as his will was the interpreter of the wills of all of them who, as the Scriptures say, were in his loins, whose own act the sin interpretatively is, so that they are born with the absence of the perfection that should exist. The will, I say, of Adam, as the source and root of the human race, was con- sidered as ours, not formally, but interpretatively. For the first man had the wills of all his posterity gathered up, as it were, in his own will; whence, for himself and all his posterity, he declared his will and that of his posterity against the Law that had been given. II. With regard to God, as the Judge who, according to His mighty power, justly punishes the crime against the divine majesty also in the posterity, namely, those fallen in Adam, by the want, in so far, of original righteousness, and thus most justly imputes to them the sin of Adam unto condemnation." QUEN., however, distinguishes between immediate and mediate imputation (II, 114): "The first Adamitic sin is immediately imputed to us so far as we existed already in Adam. But the sin of Adam is mediately imputed to us, viz., as original sin is mediately inherent in us, so far as we are regarded in our own persons and individually. For ---------------------End of Page 240------------------------------ no one is considered as a sinner by God and to no one is that first act imputed, except to him who descends contaminated with orig- inal sin, from the same Adam." The word to impute, QUEN. explains thus (II, 111): "The word imputation in this place is received not physically, for implanting or inserting, but relatively, for estimating. In the Hebrew langauge it is explained by XXXX, in the Greek by logizesthai, and in the Ger- man by zurechnen; as if you would say, in computing, that you set something over to some one, or in counting or calculating, that you assign something." Imputation is proved from Rom. 5:12, 14, 19. The common explanation of the first passage is: "in whom, viz., Adam, all have sinned." But QUEN. remarks (II, 58) that "it makes little difference whether you translate eph' o, in whom, or on which account. For, if it is retained as causal, it confirms our view. For thus we argue: They who die, die because they have sinned. But all mankind die, even infants and those not yet born. There- fore, they die, because they have sinned." "But infants and those not yet born, die either on account of some fault (delictum) of their own or of an actual transgression; therefore, on account of the actual transgression of another, scil., of Adam, who tainted them with his own stain. But if the other signification be received, i.e., (in quo) relatively in Adam, as root, fountain, cause, head, it is again proved that Adam's sin is imputed to all." In reference to Rom. 5:19, QUEN. remarks (II, 113): "As we are made righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, so were we made unrighteous by the disobedience of Adam." In order to express himself with entire accuracy, QUEN. remarks, in addition (II, 53), that the phrase, "the fall of Adam," is taken in different senses. The one sense is, "Specifically a transgression in relation to the forbidden tree," and therefore it is, "Formally considered, the sin of the individual Adam;" in this case we say, "The Fall becomes ours by imputation only." The other sense is, "That also which flowed from this transgression, viz., the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of the whole nature;" and then we must say, "It passes over to posterity, not only by imputation, but also by natural generation." We remark, in ad- dition, that the doctrine of the imputation of the guilt and punish- ment of our first parents was fully developed only by the later Theologians, from about the time of CALOVIUS, but an intimation of it appears in the FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., I, 9): "That fault or liability, whereby it comes to pass that we all, because of the dis- obedience of Adam and Eve, are under God's abhorrence and are by nature children of wrath." ----------------End of Page 241---------------------------------- [8] The Scholastics distinguished "original sin originating," from "original sin originated." QUEN. (II, 115): "Active, or originating original sin, is that vicious act which our first parents committed, by transgressing the paradisaic Law, which act, indeed, has not passsed over to their posterity, nor is it found in them, except by imputation only. However, it gave origin to the deep corruption of man, which is called passive or originated original sin, which is a vicious habit, contracted by Adam through that actual transgres- sion of the divine Law, and propagated to his posterity." The word is here used in the latter sense. HOLL. (518): "In ecclesiastical phraseology, not biblical, this sin, derived from the fall of Adam is called original, and indeed, not in respect to the origin of the world or of man, but (1) because de- rived from Adam, the root and beginning of the human race; (2) because it is connected with the origin of the descendants of Adam; (3) because it is the origin and fountain of actual transgressions." "In the language of Scripture, this connate depravity is called: (1) indwelling sin, Rom. 7:17, because after the Fall it fixed its seat firmly in man, nor departs from him until the habitation of soul and body is dissolved; (2) besetting sin, because it surrounds us on all sides, like a long garment impeding a runner, Heb. 12:1; (3) a law in the members, Rom. 7:23, since, as a law rules and governs an agent, thus original sin directs the members of the body to the perpetration of wicked deeds; (4) an evil lying near, Rom. 7:21, because like a chain it clings to a man who wishes to do good." [9] More extended definitions. HOLL. (518): "Original Sin is a want of original righteousness, connected with a depraved incli- nation, corrupting in the most inward parts the whole human nature, derived from the fall of our first parents, and propagated to all men by natural generation, rendering them indisposed to spirti- ual good, but inclined to evil, and making them the objects of divine wrath, and eternal condemnation." QUEN. (II, 52): "Original Sin is a want of original righteous- ness, derived from the sin of Adam and propagated to all men who are begotten in the ordinary mode of generation, including the dreadful corruption and depravity of human nature and all its powers, excluding all from the grace of God and eternal life, and subjecting them to temporal and eternal punishments, unless they be born again of water and the Spirit, or obtain the remission of their sins through Christ." The proofs of the existence of Original Sin are drawn from Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; Ps. 14:2, 3; 58:3; Isaiah 48:8; John 3: -------------------------End of Page 242--------------------------- 5, 6; Eph. 2:3. Especially from Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-14; Gen. 5:3. CHMN. (Loc. Th., I, 230) thus comments on the important passage, Rom. 5:12: "(1) The efficient cause of Original Sin is shown to be the first man. (2) The subject affected by Original Sin is pointed out, i.e., that it not only adhered in Adam, but has passed into the world, i.e., into all men who come into the world. (3) The punishment is described, which is not only the death of the body, but the reign of death and the sentence of condemnation. ... (4) Lest the guilt should be understood only as for the sin of another, without any personal fault, Paul affirms that the whole world is guilty, both in consequence of the one sin of the first man, and because all have sinned, i.e., have been constituted sinners. (5) He indicates what kind of sin it was, when he says that even they have original sin who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. (6) He describes the manner in which original sin is propagated--he says, by one man." [GRH., IV, 322: "The chief arguments of the Pelagians are: 1. Ez. 18:20, `The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.' Answer: The passage treats not of original, but of actual sins, whose penalty the son does not bear, if he desist from the sins of the guilty parent, and be converted. We invert the argument. Infants are punished by disease and death; therefore, they have sin of their own, because of which they are punished, viz., original sin propagagted in them by their parents, which is no longer foreign to them, but transmitted to them, by the contagion of propagation. 2. Ps. 106:38, Infants are pronounced innocent. John 4:11; Rom. 9:11. Answer. This is to be understood relatively with respect to actual sins, and not with respect to original sin. 3. Rom. 4: 15: `Where there is no law, there is no transgression.' Answer: Infants are both without the Law, i.e., they are ignorant of the Law, Rom. 2:12, and yet are not without Law, i.e., they are not free from the accusation whereby the Law reproves and condemns all lawlessness. 4. `If there be Original Sin, sin must be attributed to God forming infants in the womb; therefore, marriage is to be con- demned.' Answer: The fault in a nature must be discriminated from the kindness of God in forming the nature. Both nature and the fault or defect of the nature are propagated: of which, the former is good; the latter, evil. 5. If the sins of godly parents are forgiven in baptism, how then do they propagate sin to their children? Answer: Carnal generation is not according to grace, but according to nature. Augustine: `In begetting, he does not give that whence one is regenerated, but whence one is generated.' `That which is born of flesh is flesh.' Do you ask how an unrighteous man is ----------------------End of Page 243-------------------------------- born of a righteous, when you see that one could not be righteous, unless he were regenerate? A grain of wheat, though freed from chaff, produces grains with chaff. Circumcised Israelites beget uncircumcised children."] 10 QUEN. (II, 59): "In form, it is an habitual want of orig- inal righteousness, Ps. 14:3; 53:3; Rom. 3:10, 11, 12, 23, united with a contrary form, i.e., the most complete corruption of the whole nature, Rom. 7:17, 20, 21; Heb. 12:1." See Sym- bolical Books, and especially Ap. Conf., II, 26; Form. Conc., I, 11. In reference to the former (viz., the lack of original righteousness), BR. (404) remarks: "Here belongs that death, or the want of spiritual life, and of all the active powers which are required for the exercise of vital acts in conformity with the divine Law. And this death is ascribed to men, because they are by nature children of wrath, Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13. For, as original righteousness had inhered in the faculties of the soul of the first men, and had, as it were, animated and prepared them to live a life of godliness, and to elicit and exercise among themselves actions and motions spiritually good; so, this primeval righteousness having been lost, a man is like a dead body which has been deprived, by the separa- tion of the soul from the body, of all power to call forth in itself and to exercise vital acts and motions, because he is destitute of strength for the performance of spiritual actions and motions." In reference to the latter (viz., concupiscence), BR. (404): "For the same carnal man who, in consequence of the want of spiritual life, is like one dead, in another respect is said to be liv- ing and very active, but it is a life alien from the life of God, Eph. 4:18; 2:3. The faculties of the soul are, indeed, essentially vital faculties; and, when they are deprived of original righteousness, although they lack the powers necessary to conduct the life in a manner agreeable to God, nevertheless those powers are not lost or destroyed, as far as there is in them vitality and strength to call forth vital acts and motions. Therefore, they pursue another course of life, manifestly different from the former." Concupis- cence is, therefore, predicated along with the want of original righteousness; and the following position is taken as oppposed to the Papists: QUEN. (II, 135): "Original Sin, formally considered, consists not in a mere want of rectitude which should exist, or a want of concreated righteousness, but also in a state of illegality, or an approach, contrary to the divine Law, to a forbidden object; which, in one word, is called a depraved concupiscence." "Orig- inal Sin is, therefore, a depravity negative and positive: negative, without the good which should exist; positive, desirous of the evil -----------------------End of Page 244--------------------------------- which should not exist, i.e., concupiscence itself." The positive depravity is thus more particularly defined. QUEN. (II, 136): "Original Sin is called a positive depravity, not accurately and according to philosophical abstraction, according to which every positive entity is a good created by God, but according to the lati- tude used by theologians, and that (1) denominatively, as far as it includes a subjective positive act; (2) formally, as far as, besides the act in which the privation is inherent, and besides the want of that original righteousness which ought to exist, it involves also an inclination, and a wickedness directly opposite to original righteousness." The particular parts of Original Sin are then more specifically thus described by BR. (406-408): "In respect of the intellect, Original Sin implies a total want of spiritual light, so that it cannot know God aright, nor perfectly prescribe in what way He should be worshiped, nor embrace with a firm assent the things which have been divinely revealed; at the same time, also, there is a proneness of the intel- lect to form rash and false judgments concerning spiritual things; even also in those things which lie open to the light of nature, there is a certain impotency in the knowledge of God and the government of life. In respect of the will, Original Sin consists in a want of origi- nal holiness, or the ability to love God above all things, to perform what the intellect has dictated aright, and to restrain the appetite in a proper manner; also, on the contrary, in that the will is inclined to sinful acts. In respect of the sensuous appetite, there is a want of the obedience that is due to the higher faculties, and a rushing, as if by some impulse, contrary to them, into those things which are agreeable to the senses, although prohibited by the divine Law; the decision of reason either not having been waited for, or having been rejected." [11] CONF. AUG. II. "They teach that, since the fall of Adam, all men who are begotten in the natural way are born with sin (i.e.) without the fear of God, or faith in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or original fault, is truly sin, condemning and causing now, also eternal death to those who are not born again by Baptism and the Holy Spirit." See AP. CONF. II, 38, 41. FORM. CONC., Sol. Decl. I, 6. "This evil Dr. Luther was accus- tomed sometimes to call the sin of our nature or person; by which he meant that, although a man should not think, speak, or do any evil (which, indeed, since the fall of our first parents, is impossible for human nature, in this life), nevertheless, the nature and person of man are sinful (i.e.) that they are wholly and completly in- fected, poisoned, and corrupted before God, by original sin, in their --------------------End of Page 245------------------------------------- very inmost parts, and the most profound recesses of the heart; and in consequence of this corruption and fall of our first parents, the nature and person of man are accused and condemned by the Law of God, so that we are by nature the children of wrath, the slaves of death and damnation, unless we be liberated from these evils, and be preserved through the benefits which flow from the merits of Christ." QUEN. (II, 60): "This concupiscence, denoting the propensity to evil which is implanted in the depraved nature, even as it re- mmains in the regenerate, is truly sin, because the definition of sin suits it. Therefore Paul, Rom. 7, calls it sin fourteeen times, not by metonymy, that it is only the punishment of the first sin, and the cause of subsequent actual transgression, as the Papists teach, but properly and formally, because it is truly sin, whence also the Apostle names it the law of sin warring against the law of the mind, an evil, a sinning sin." [12] BR. (420): "The consequences of Original Sin are various evils: In respect of the soul, a want of freedom of the will in spiritual things, and an infirmity of the will in things natural; actual trans- gressions, multiplied both in kind and number; a want of grace, and, on the contrary, the anger of God. In respect of the body, dis- eases and other troubles, with temporal death; finally, also, eternal death or damnation." It having been urged that Original Sin in itself is not an adequate cause of eternal death, CAL. (XII, 229, sqq.) answers: "That not all infected with Original Sin are con- demned, is due not to the fact that origianl sin is not of itself an adequate or sufficient cause of condemnation, but that by faith some obtain forgiveness, as of actual, so also of Original Sin." The passage John 3:18 being cited to show that unbelief is the only damning sin, he answers: "Unbelief condemns formally; but sins condemn materially. Unbelief is the cause of our not being freed from the condemnation, from which by faith we can be freed. ** Luther's marginal gloss on John 15:22 does not teach the contrary. For he says that Original Sin has not been blotted out except by Christ's acquiring for it expiation through His merit; aye, he adds that original sin even now condemns those who do not believe." Cf. GERHARD VIII, 26 sqq. Quen. II, 62: "Original Sin is in itself, and of its own nature, deserving of divine wrath and eternal death, although in fact accidentally, viz., through and because of Christ's merit, appreheded by faith, it does not condemn the re- generate. That is: In itself, it is always a damnable sin, although in the regenerate, it has lost, because of Christ's merit, the power to damn, Rom. 8:1. Here the Apostle does not say that there is ----------------End of Page 246----------------------------------- nothing damnable in the regenerate, or those who are in Christ Jesus, but that there is no katakrima, i.e., nothing which would actually bring damnation." [13] When it is asserted, concerning Original Sin, that it is in- herent naturally, two things are hereby intended: (1) QUEN. (II, 62): "That it is not a mere accident, lightly and externally attached, but internally and intimately inhering, and therefore called, Heb. 12:1, the easily besetting sin (euperistatos); that it is an accident connate (sunemphutos) and natural; that although it does not arise from the nature as such, yet it is produced together with it, or is connate with it; that it is not any temporary and transient accident, but is fixed and permanent." In order to keep aloof from such a view (the Pelagian), the Dogmaticians express themselves in forcible language concerning human depravity. Thus CHMN. (Doc. Th., I. 259): "There are not a few who so extenuate Original Sin, that they pretend that it is a corruption of certain accidents only, and that the substance itself of man, and especially of the soul, exists after the Fall, and remains upright, uninjured, and pure: so that this quasi impediment having been removed, the substance itself of man, after the Fall, and before the renewing of the Spirit, by, in, or of itself, has certain spiritual powers or facul- ties which it employs of itself to begin to complete spiritual actions. ... The true and constant sentiment of the Church must be op- posed to, clearly explained and keenly defended against, these philosophical and Pelagian vagaries,... viz., that the nature or substance in man, since the Fall and before regeneration, is by no means upright, pure, or sound; but that the very nature or sub- stance of man, and especially of the human soul, is truly corrupt, vitiated, and depraved, and that not lightly or only superficially, or even in some part only; but that the whole mass (if I may so speak) of the substance, or of the human nature, and especially of the soul, is corrupted and vitiated with the deepest and extreme de- pravity.... This corruption or depravity is nothing abstract, nor an idea outside of the substance or nature of man, but is inherent in our very nature or substance, and like a spiritual poison has infected, pervaded, and diffused itself far and wide throughout all the members of our whole substance or human nature." The position of Flacius, viz., "That Original Sin is the very substance itself of man or the human soul," arose from a misapprehension or an overstraining of these views. Therefore the expression, "inherent in our nature," signifies-- (2) QUEN. (II, 62): "That Original Sin is not the very substance of man...but that which inheres in it after the manner of an --------------------End of Page 247---------------------------------- accident; for it is distinguished in the Scriptures, Rom. 7:20, from the essence itself of man, and is called indwelling sin; now, as an inhabitant or guest is not the same as the house, so neither is sin the same as man." FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. 1:33): "Although Original Sin has in- fected and corrupted the whole nature of man, like some spiritual poison and horrible leprosy, so that now, in our corrupt nature, these two, viz., Nature alone and Original Sin alone, cannot be dis- tinctly pointed out to view; yet the corrupt nature or the substance of corrupt man, body and soul, or man himself created by God, in whom original sin dwells (by reason of which the nature, substance, and indeed the whole man is corrupted), and original sin itself, which dwells in the nature or essence of man and corrupts it, are not one and the same.... The distinction, therefore, between our nature, as it was created by God and is preserved to this day, in which Original Sin dwells, and Original Sin, which dwells in our nature, must be retained." And this is the reason why Original Sin is called accidental. FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. I, 57): "Since therefore, this is an unchangeable truth, that whatever is, is either a substance or an accident, namely, either something subsisting by itself, or something elsewhere derived and adhering in a substance, ... we must assuredly admit... that sin is not a substance, but an accident." To this the FORM. adds (I, 60): "When it is inquired what kind of an accident Original Sin is, that is another question. No philosopher, no papist, no sophist, yea, no human reason, can exhibit a true solution of this question; its explication is to be sought from the Holy Scriptures alone." The expressions which have been employed by CHMN. are sustained by the follow- ing distinction (Sol. Dec. I, 51): "In order to avoid logomachies, terms of an equivocal signification should be carefully and clearly explained. When, e.g., it is said: `God creates the nature of man,' by the term, nature, the very substance, body and soul is meant. But often a property or condition of anything (whether it be taken in good part or bad) is called the nature of that thing; as when it is said, it is the nature of the serpent to strike and to infect with poison (here not the substance, but the badness of the serpent is expressed); in this sense Dr. Luther uses the term nature, when he says that `sin and to sin is the nature of corrupt man.'" [14] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. I, 7): "And at the present time, even in this corruption of nature, God does not create sin in us, but, together with the nature which God creates and effects in men, original sin is propagated by natural generation, by seed corrupted by sin, from father and mother." --------------------------End of Page 248------------------------------ Here the question naturally prsents itself, in what manner this corrupt nature perpetuates itself, and "Whether the soul is propa- gated by traduction (ex traduce), i.e., whether, as in natural gen- eration, the flesh of the offspring is substantially transmitted from the seed of the parent, the soul of the child is, in like manner, also transmitted from the soul of the parent?" On this subject CHMN. (Loc. Th. I, 236) says: "Luther, in his discussions, concludes that he wishes to affirm nothing publicly concerning that question, but that he privately held the opinion of traduction. It is suffi- cient for us to know concerning the efficient cause, that our first parents by their Fall merited that, such as they were after the Fall, both in body and mind, such also all their posterity should be procreated. But how the soul contracts that sin we need not know, since the Holy Spirit has not been pleased to disclose this in certain and clear Scripture testimonies." HUTT. also (328) says: "In consequence of this disagreement among the Dogmaticians, it has come to pass, even in our day, that there are not wanting theologians even of the highest rank who, in regard to this very question, would rather keep silent altogether (epechein) than to assert anything positively either within or beyond the express authority of Scripture." But he adds, also: "If any of our brethren should ask which opinion we think most accordant with truth, we fearlessly answer that we precisely accord with the opinion of Luther, and hold it to be consonant with Scrip- tujre, namely, that the human soul is propagated by traduction; so that, just as everything else produces its like, a lion begetting a lion, a horse begetting a horse, so also man begets man, and not alone the flesh, or the body, but also the soul is propagated essen- tially from its parents." (319).... QUEN. (II, 62): "As the soul was the first to exhibit sin (proton deiktikon), so original sin itself, through the medium of the soul, in which it most deeply inheres, is propagated per traducem." (For a fuller discussion of this subject see PARA. 20, Note 8.) [HUTT. (329) further shows that as soon as the opinion of a new creation of souls is admitted, one of three things follows, viz., either that the soul, as immediately created by God, is free from sin, or that it is polluted by sin, or that it is defiled by union with the body. But if God creates it sinful, or unites it with a body where the inevitable consequence is that it contracts sin, He be- coimes the author of sin. On the other hand, the entrance of the soul into the world in a state of integrity is contradicted by the ex- press testimony of Scripture concerning natural depravity.] [15] It is more specifically described as follows. QUEN. (II, ----------------End of Page 249---------------------------------- 62): "In Original Sin there are four things worthy of attention, to each of which a certain limit of duration has been prefixed. (1) An inflammable material (fomes, tinder) habitually inhering, or a root. (2) The sense of this tendency or root. (3) The dominion of it; and, finally, (4) Guilt. The last is removed in regeneration and justification; dominion in sanctification (not at once, but gradually and successively, because sanctification is not complete in this life); the sense of it is removed in death; the material itself, not in the incineration (since not the body, but the soul, is the first and immediate subject of sin), but in the dissolution of the soul and body." AP. CONF. (II, 35): "Luther always wrote that Baptism re- moves the guilt of Original Sin, although the material of sin, as they call it, viz., concupiscence, remains. He added, also, concerning its material character, that the Holy Spirit, being given in Bap- tims, begins to mortify the propensity to sin, and creates new motions in man. Augustine also speaks in the same manner, and says that sin is remitted in Baptism, not that it may not exist, but that it may not be imputed. He openly confesses that it exists, that is, that sin remains, although it is not imputed." [On the other hand, the Council of Trent maintained that con- cupiscence, in the regenerate, is not properly sin. CHEMNITZ answers (Ex. Conc. Trid., Pr. Ed., 108): "It is not a good thing, as Paul shows in Rom. 7, in many words. Nor is it an adiaphoron, or indifferent matter, Rom. 7:21. It is certain, therefore, that it is an evil.... This original concupiscence is forgiven, weakened and diminished in Baptism: yet not so as to be suddenly removed and altogether extinguished, as no longer to exist; for as long as the regenerate live here there must be a law of sin in their members. But the remaining concupiscence does not hinder them from pleasing God, and being heirs of everlasting life. Nevertheless this is not because this concupiscence in the re- generate has been rendered holy or indifferent by means of Bap- tism. But it is of God's grace, that such an evil dwelling in the flesh of the regenerate is, for Christ's sake, not imputed to them for condemnation."] PARA. 27. Of Actual Sins. Original Sin is the ground and source of all actual trans- gressions. By these we are to understand, however, not only sins which manifest themselves in outward acts, but also those which depend upon purely internal acts of man. HUTT. (Loc. -------------------End of Page 250--------------------------------- c. Th., 346): "Actual transgression is every act, whether ex- ternal or internal, which conflicts with the Law of God." [1] They are numerous and diversified, and are divided, accord- ing to QUEN. (II, 65), in the following manner: I. "In respect of an internal defective cause in the agents, into voluntary and involuntary. A voluntary sin is an act by which man transgresses the divine Law, by a deliberate voli- tion, contrary to the dictates of conscience. Involuntary sin is an act inconsistent with the Law, committed without sure knowledge or a deliberate purpose of the will." Involuntary sin is accordingly divided into sins of ignorance and of infirm- ity. [2] II. "In respect of the person sinning, 1, into our own sins and the sins of others. Our own sins are those which we ourselves contract, either by doing what has been prohibited, or by omit- ting to do what has been commanded. Those are called the sins of others, which are indeed perpetrated by others, but in which we share or participate; [3] 2, into venial and mortal. Venial sins are those which, as soon as they are committed, and at the very moment when they are perpetrated, have par- don connected with them by an indissoluble bond. Mortal sins are those which produce spiritual death at the very mo- ment when they are committed." [4] III. "In respect of the material in which (in qua) they are committed, they are divided into internal and external. In- ternal are those of the heart; external are those of word and deed." [5] IV. "In respect of the material about which (circa quam) they are committed; into sins against the first table immediately and directly, and those against the second table, i.e., against God, against a neighbor, and against the person of the trans- gressor himself." V. "In respect of the sinful act itself: into sins of commission and of omission. Sins of commission are those which consist in positive acts which come into conflict with a negative pre- cept. Sins of omission consist in the refusal or omission of acts which are prescribed by a positive precept." (BR. 440.) [6] VI. "In respect of the effect: into sins which cry out for pun- ishment, and those which do not. Of the former kind are ---------------End of Page 251------------------------------------ vicious acts which provoke God to vengeance, although men are silent or only connive at them. The latter are those which God endures through His long-suffering, and either postpones the punishment, or, if they have been committed by the re- generate, forgives." [7] VII. "In respect of their adjuncts, sins are divided into, 1, more or less grievous (on account of the greater or less fault or wickedness connected with them); [8] 2, into secret and mani- fest; [9] 3, into dead and living. Dead sins are those which indeed remain in us, but are not known as sins, or certainly not considred as great as they really are. Living sins are those which are known to be such, and rage even after the knowledge of the Law, Rom. 7:8, 9; 4, into remaining and re- mitted sins. A remaining sin is that which yet oppresses the sinner by its guilt and weight. A remitted sin is that whose guilt has been removed from the sinner, by the grace of God, for the sake of the merit of Christ; 5, into sins connected with hardness of heart and blindness of mind, and those unconnected with these; [10] 6, into pardonable and unpardonable sins. Of the latter class there is only the sin against the Holy Ghost. [11] This sin consists in a malicious denial of, a hostile at- tack upon, and a horrid blasphemy of divine truth, evidently known and approved by conscience, and an obstinate and finally persevering rejection of all the means of salvation. HOLL. (556), Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26, 29." [1] CAL. (V, 311): "Actual sin is a departure from the Law, by which human thoughts and actions proceeding from the flesh transgress the divine Law given by Moses, and thus it exposes the transgressor to temporal and eternal punishment." HOLL. (537): "Actual sin is a turning away, by a human act either of commission or omission, from the rule of the divine Law, incurring responsibility for guilt and liability to punishment." QUEN. (II, 63): "The words `act' and `actual' in this place are used not strictly for external acts only, and sins of commission, but with such latitude that they embrace also internal vicious emo- tions, both primary and secondary, and also sins of omission." "In the Holy Scriptures, actual sins are called works of the flesh, Gal. 5:19; unfruitful works of darkness, Eph. 5:11; deeds of the old man, Col. 3:9; dead works, Heb. 6:1; 9:14; unlawful deeds, 2 Peter 2:8." --------------End of Page 252--------------------------------------------- [2] Here these further remarks are to be added: (a) QUEN. (II, 67): "Sin is here called voluntary, not because it is with the will or in the will, for thus also involuntary violations of duty would be voluntary; but it is understood here as opposed to that which is done through ignorance and inconsiderately (aproairetos)." (b) HOLL. (542): "Voluntary sin is viewed both in respect of conscience, and in respect of the purpose of the will." Sin against conscience is fourfold. For it is committed either against a correct conscience, when a man, either by action or omission, does not follow, but despises the dictate of conscience when it agrees with the divine Law; or against an erroneous conscience, when a man, either by action or omission, turns away from the dictate of conscience imbued in error; or against a probable conscience, when any one is delinquent contrary to the dictate of the intellect, which urges, for probable reasons, that something should be done or omitted now at this place; or against a doubtful conscience, when any one does or omits that, concerning which he is in doubt whether it should be done or omitted. Voluntary sin, viewed in respect of the purpose of the will, is twofold. The one kind is that which is committed from mere malice and a will altogether free. The other is that which is committed under the power of a will influenced by force or fear, and by surrounding dangers. Matt. 26:70, 72, 74; Mark 14:68, 70, 71; Luke 22:57, 58, 60; John 18:25, 27." (c) Involuntary sins are [QUEN., II, 70): "1. Sins of ignorance, which overtake the unwilling regenerate, in consequence of the darkness of the mind, which has not been yet entirely removed by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. 2. Sins of infirmity, which overtake the regenerate without any certain purpose of sinning. Such are sinful emotions of the mind, which have suddenly arisen without their will, and whatever unlawful words or deeds are the result of inadvertence or precipitancy, and contrary to the purpose of the will, Gen. 9:21; 16:5; 18:12; Numbers 20:11, 12; Acts 15:39; Rom. 7:15; Gal. 2:12, 13, 14; 6:1." [3] HOLL. (552): "Our own sin is a vicious act, produced by a real influence of our own: the sin of another imputed to us, is an unlawful act, to the production of which we concur indeed by no real influence, yet by an efficacious intention, so that it can be justly imputed to us. (He concurs, by efficacious intention, in the sin of another, who commands, consults, consents, connives at, does not opppose, or give information, and thus is the moral cause of the sin of another), Eph. 5:7 and 11; 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 John 11; Rev. 18:4." [4] HOLL. (547): (a) "Venial sin is every involuntary sin in the ---------------End of Page 253-------------------------------------- regenerate, which neither removes the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit, nor extinguishes faith, but, in the moment in which it is committed, has pardon connected with it by an indissoluble bond. The distinction of sin into mortal and venial does not arise from the desert of sin, for every sin, of itself, and by its own nature, in a court of law is damnable; but (1) From the different conditions of the subject, or the person sinning. For a venial sin exists in the regenerate, a mortal sin in those who either never were regenerated, or, having been overcome by the predominating power of the flesh, fell from a state of grace. (2) From the estimate which God has made in the Gospel; because God, a reconciled and gracious Father, does not impute to the regenerate sins of infirmity and ignorance for guilt and punishment. (3) From the event. A mortal sin pre- cipitates the sinner into a state of wrath, death, and condemnation, so that, if he should die in this state, and without repentance, he would be certainly condemned; but a venial sin, because it has pardon as an inseparable attendant, can consist with the grace of God and saving faith." (Id. 551): "The causes of forgiveness or non-imputation are: the compassion of God, the satisfaction and intercession of Christ (1 John 2:1, 2; Rom. 8:1), the efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit, and the daily penitence of the regen- erate." (Id. 547): (b) "A mortal sin is that by which the regen- erate, having been overcome by the flesh, and thus not remaining in a regenerate state, transgress the divine Law by a deliberate pur- pose of the will, contrary to the dictates of conscience, and thereby lose saving faith, reject the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, and cast themselves into a state of wrath, death and condemnation." [5] HOLL. (552): "Sins of the heart are depraved thoughts and desires which are cherished within the human breast; sins of the lips are wicked words and gestures expressed by the lips; sins of deed are actions which are performed contrary to the divine Law, by an external effort of the members. Matt. 5:21, 22." [6] HOLL. (552): "Sins of commission are positive acts, by which the negative precepts of God are violated. Sins of omission are the neglect of acts prescribed by the affirmative precepts of God, James 4:16, 17. Note. Although there is oftentimes, in a sin of omission, a certain illicit positive act, either an internal act of the will, as, for example, to will to omit what had been commanded, or an external act, as an operation by which any one is hindered from that which he ought to do; yet such a positive act is not always or necessarily required, but the mere fact that one does not do what is com- manded is sin." [7] HOLL. (553): "Outcrying sins are the following, the Scrip- -----------------------End of Page 254---------------------------------- tures being witness: 1. The fratricide committed by Cain, Gen. 4: 10. 2. The sins of the Sodomites, Gen. 18:20. 3. The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, Exod. 3:9; of widows and orphans, Exod. 22:22. 4. The denial of wages due to hirelings, James 5:4." [8] HOLL. (454): "One sin is more grievous than another: 1. In respect to the efficient cause or person sinning. A Christian sins more grievously than a heathen, though he commit the same crime. 2. In respect of the impelling cause. He who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, for the sake of gratifying his lust, sins more grievously than he who steals when impelled by hunger. 3. In respect of the object. He is more guilty who slays his father than he who slays an enemy. 4. In respect of the Law. He sins more grievously who violates the first table of the Law, than he who violates the second. 5. In respect to the effect. That sin is regarded as the more grievous which is attended with the greater injury." [9] HOLL. (554): "A secret sin is that which is either unknown to the person himself who sins, or which is known only to him who sins, and a few others who wish it suppressed. An open sin is that which has become known to many, and, if it be connected with offence to others, is called a scandal. A scandal is an open sin which furnishes an occasion of sinning to those who know it. It is usually divided into given or active scandal, and received or passive. The former is an open sin which is the occasion of sinning to others; the latter is a word or deed of another, not in itself evil, by which others are offended, or take occasion to sin." [10] HOLL. (555): "Sin, connected with hardness of heart, is the most atrocious of all, by which the mind of man, having been polluted, remains averse to the Word of God and blind; the will, confirmed in wickedness, resists the Holy Spirit; the appetite in- dulges in beastly pleasures; and therefore the sinner, being with difficulty or not at all corrigible, brings upon himself temporal and eternal punishments. The cause of this hardness is not God, but partly the devil, who multiplies evils, blind the mind, and fills the heart with wickedness, 2 Cor. 4:4; Acts 5:3; Eph. 2:2; partly man, who rejects the ordinary means of salvation, and is continu- ally selling himself to the desire and practice of sin, Matt. 13:15." In reference to Exod. 7:3, HOLL (492) remarks: "God does not harden men causally or effectively, by sending hardness into their hearts, but judicially, permissively, and by forsaking them. For the act of hardening is a judicial act, by which, on account of anteced- ent, voluntary, and inevitable wickedness, God justly permits a man habitually wicked to rush into greater crimes, and withdraws -------------------------End of Page 255-------------------------- His grace from him, and finally delivers him up to the power of Satan, by whom he is afterwards driven on into greater sins, until He finally cuts him off from the right of the heavenly inheritance." [11] QUEN. (II, 74): "The word, Spirit, is not used here with respect to esssence, as the term is common to the three persons of the God-head, but it is used personally, for the third person of the Godhead; yet respect being had, not so much to the person itself of the Holy Spirit, as if this sin were committed immediately against Him, as to His office and blessings, for example, as far as He strives to illuminate men through the doctrines of the Gospel. ... Therefore, the Holy Spirit must here be viewed in relation to His office, and the sin is said to be against the Holy Spirit, partly in respect of His ministry, and partly in respect of His testimony. Rom. 8:16." GRH. (V, 85): "The Sin against the Holy Ghost, therefore, is an intentional denial of evangelical truth, which has been acknowl- edged and approved by conscience, connected with a bold attack upon it, and voluntary blasphemy of it. For we must observe that this kind of sin was proved against the Pharisees by Christ; for, although they were constrained by the force of the truth uttered by Him, and were convicted in their consciences by its illumination, yet they raged against Him by their wicked impiety, to such a degree that they blushed not to ascribe His doctrines and miracles to Satan. The epistle to the Hebrews thus describes those who sin against the Holy Ghost, that they, having been previously illuminated, have also tasted the heavenly gift and been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, have tasted also the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, yet afterwards fall away, and thus crucify to themselves afresh the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame; also that, by voluntary apostasy, they trample under foot the Son of God, and esteem His blood, by which they were sanctified, an unholy thing, and do despite unto the spirit of grace." QUEN. (II, 82): "The form of the Sin against the Holy Ghost consists, (1) In a denial, by a full, free, and unimpeded exercise of the will, of evangelical truth, after the latter has been evidently and sufficiently acknowledged and approved. Heb. 6:4; 10:26, 29. (2) In a hostile attack upon the same. Matt. 12:31, 32. (3) In voluntary and atrocious blasphemy. Heb. 10:26, 29." To this the remark is added, however (Ib., p. 83): "That these essential requisites of this sin must always be taken conjointly, and never separately, and that then that must be called the sin against the Holy Ghost, concerning which all these can be conjointly veri- ----------------End of Page 256--------------------------------------- fied." The following additional description flows from the nature of the subject: "Not infants, but adults, commmit this sin, who are not destitute of the knowledge of the revealed Word of God, but who have been illuminated and convicted by conscience of the certainty of divine truth, and have fallen from the desire and love of it into bitter hatred against it." (HOLL., 561.) To wihich BR. adds (444): "Whether the doctrine had been once approved by the assent of divine faith and a public profession, or only so clearly perceived that the mind, having been convicted, had nothing which it could oppose to it. In the former mode, those apostates sin against the Holy Ghost who deny the truth once acknowledged and believed, and utter reproaches against it, as Paul describes them, Heb. 6:4. The Pharisees and Scribes belong to the latter class, who never, by their confession, approved of the doctrines of Christ. In the meantime, they were so convinced of their truth, from the Scriptures and the miracles of Christ, that they could oppose noth- ing but reproaches." As adjuncts of this sin, QUEN. (II, 83) adds: "(1) Final impenitence, Heb. 6:4-6; (2) Absolute irremissibil- ity, Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10; (3) Exclusion from the prayers of believers, 1 John 5:16." HOLL. (564): "It is irremissible, not through any want of divine grace, or inadequacy of the atonement of Christ, or any want of the efficacious influence of the Holy Ghost, but on account of a wicked rejection of all the means of grace, and by reason of final impenitence." On the other hand, the sin against the Son of man is remissible. Matt. 12:32; Luke 12:10. QUEN. (II, 87): "The sin against the Son of man is either a denial of the truth of the Gospel already acknowledged concerning the Son of God, who became man, resulting from infirmity of the flesh and fear of dan- ger, but not united with a hostile attack and blasphemy, or an attack or blasphemy through ignorance of the truth not acknowledged." PARA. 28. The Freedom of the Will. Since so great a change has taken place in man through the Fall, the question remains to be discussed, What powers to act does he still retain? [1] For, since all these powers are de- pendent upon knowledge and will, it is natural that, so far as knowledged and will are weakencded or lost, these powers to act should also thereby suffer. But the question, as to the powers retained by man, is identical with that as to how far freedom of the will (liberum arbitrium) in regard to his actions pertains to him [2] As, however, various opinions have ---------------End of Page 257-------------------------------------- often been entertained in reference to this liberum arbitrium, it is necessary, first of all, that we definitely determine the proper significance of this term. If we understand by it the will itself, then it cannot be questioned that since the Fall this still belongs to man, for without this he would cease to be man. [3] In like manner it belongs also to the nature of man that neither in his will nor in his acts, neither externally nor internally (by instinct), can he be determined by irresisti- ble necessity. [4] All this is therefore to be predicated of man after the Fall, no less than before it, for all this belongs strictly to the essential nature of man, which suffered no change through the Fall. But, if we understand by liberum arbitrium that power of willing, in virture of which man can act in everythiing, in good as well as in evil, entirely without hindrance, just as he pleases ("the liberum arbirium is that power of the will which, following the judgment of reason, enables man most freely to embrace the good and resist the evil" (HUTT., Loc. c. Th., 269)), [5] then it follows, from the change that has occurred in man through the Fall, that this cannot now be predicated of him. If this change consists in the loss of the divine image, it at once follows that man can no longer freely choose between good and evil, but has lost the power to will and to do that which is good. [6] If, then, we would describe more particularly the liberum arbitrium, as it exists in fallen man, we must say, that man, in consequence of the evil disposition that dwells within him since the Fall, is no longer able to will or to do anything really good and acceptable to God, viz., nothing of all that the Holy Scriptures designate and prescribe as such, because all of this can be accomplished only under the special influence of the Spirit of God. He is therefore so completely destitute of the liberum arbitrium in rebus spiritualibus, [7] that he cannot of his own accord even cherish a desire for salvation and a change of his present depraved condition. [8] And in this condition all that remains to him is liberum arbirium in malis (liberty of choice in regard to what is evil), [9] and liberum arbitrium in rebus externis, [10] namely, in all those things which being recognizable by the light of reason, are within the reach of the natural powers, without needing the aid of a truly good disposition. [11] --------------------End of Page 258---------------------------- [1] GRH. (V, 87): "Connection with the preceding. We have seen above in what wonderful and miserable ways original sin, like poison, has pervaded all the powers of man, how intimately the corruption arising from it has adhered to human nature, what pestilential fruits that envenomed seed has produced. It remains for us to inquire, what there is yet of strength in man." CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., 179): "This is the question, What human powers are there after the Fall to produce obedience to the Law, when darkness is in the mind, aversion to God in the will, and in the heart rebellion against the Law of God? And, because not only external civil acts are demanded by the Law of God, but a perfect and perpetual obedience of the whole human nature, what, and how much can the will of man accomplish? Therefore the caption of this section would have been more clearly stated, con- cerning man's powrs, than concerning the freedom of the will." [2] QUEN. (II, 170): "These powers remaining in man after the Fall are otherwise called the freedom of the will." GRH. (V, 87), thus explains the term liberum arbitrium, or freedom of the will: "These powers of man are best judged of from the rational soul by which he is distinguished from the brutes, and is constituted a distinct species. Two falculties belong to the rational soul, viz., mind and will: the former performs its office by knowing, discriminating, reflecting, judging; the latter by choosing and rejecting. From the concurrence of both, that is produced which is commonly called the free determination, which is a faculty of the mind and will, so that the determination belongs to the mind and the free belongs to the will." Therefore HOLL. (573): "The proper and adequate seat of free determination is the will. But the intellect concurs antecedently, and by way of preparation (paraskeuastikos), in the execution of the free deter- mination." QUEN. (II, 170): "The term `free determination is not given in so many words in the Scriptures; yet is found for substance, and in equivalent terms, in Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; 1 Cor. 7:37; Phil. 5:14; Heb. 10:26; 1 Pet. 5:2." [3] CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., 182): "There is great diversity among ecclesiastical writers, some affirming, others denying the freedom of the will. Even the same writer, in different places, seems often- times to express opposite sentiments on this subject, sometimes affirming and sometimes denying it. This diversity cannot be more readily settled than by a grammatical explanation of the word. For, if the term, free will, be used in the most common acceptation, it signifies nothing more than, (1) that the man who ---------------------End of Page 259--------------------------------- possesses it is rational, or has mind and choice; (2) that besides natural emotions and actions, concerning which there is no delib- eration of mind or choice of will, a man has voluntary emotions, to the exercise of which the judgment of the mind and the inclination of the will concur; (3) and that in virtues and vices, in order that actions may be called either good or bad, an intelligent mind is required and a will which either yields to or resists the judgment." HUTT. (Loc. c. Th., 267): "Sometimes the term `will,' or `choice' is employed to designate the other faculty of the soul, indeed the very substance of the will itself, whose function is sim- ply that of willing. Thus regarded, scarcely any one will deny free will to man, unless he dare assert that man is totally destitute of this faculty of the soul. The absurdity of this is, indeed, deserv- edly repudiated by all, inasmuch as no faculty or power of the soul can be ignored without ignoring the whole substance of the soul itself; for this is itself nothing else than what its faculties are, and when one faculty perishes it must itself expire." GRH. (V, 100): "The question is not whether the essence of the will itself has sur- vived the Fall, for this we emphatically maintain, viz., that man has lost not his will, but the soundness of it." [4] GRH. (V, 87): "Liberty is assigned to choice in the first place, in respect of its mode of action, because it is such that the will as far as it is such, acts freely, i.e., it is not forced or violently hurried along by an external motion, nor does it act alone by natural instinct, but either embraces, or rejects something of its own accord, or from an inner principle of movement. In this sense, free and voluntary are synonymous; and to say that the will is not free, is the same as if any one would say, that that which is warm is with- out warmth. That is called freedom from compulsion, according to which it happens that the will cannot be forced to do anything contrary to its inclination. Also freedom from neccesity, as far as necessity is employed in the sense of force and violence. Others call it interior liberty, by which the will of man is moved voluntarily, freely, without coercion, by a power implanted and with capacity to choose, and has within itself the principle of its own motion. By others it is called liberty in the subject. This liberty, since it is a natural and essential property, given to the will by God, has not been lost by the Fall. The substance of man has not perished; therefore, neither has the rational soul; therefore neither the will, nor the essential liberty of the will. The will is an essential power of the soul, and the soul is nothing else than the powers or essen- tial faculties themselves. Therefore while the soul remains, its essential powers, intellect and will, also remain. On the other -------------------End of Page 260------------------------------------ hand, the power of free and uncoerced volition is essential to the will; therefore, as long as the will remains, this power also remains. In this sense and respect we firmly believe, and emphatically de- clare, that the will of man has remained free even after the Fall." QUEN. (II, 171) makes a distinction between freedom from violence and constraint, and freedom from inward necessity, and remarks: "Freedom from violence is common to man with the brutes; but man has freedom from necessity in common with God and angels." The following distinction also deserves a place here: "An intelli- gent nature, that is at the same time infinite and divine, possesses freedom of the will in the most excellent and perfect manner; finite, or angelic and human nature, in a more imperfect manner." [5] HUTT. (Loc. c., 268): "Sometimes the term `will,' or `choice,' is understood to signify the capacity of determing freely to choose that which is good and freely to avoid that which is evil." In this respect, it is very properly denied that free will has re- mained in man since the Fall. GRH. (V, 98): "Free will in man before the Fall was that fac- ulty of the reason and will by virtue of which he was able either to sin or not to sin." QUEN. (II, 175): "The form of free choice consists in the indif- ference of the will, both that which has respect to specification as well as that which has respect to the exercise of the act; that is, it consists in such indifference and freedom that the will is not neces- sarily determined to one thing, but, all the requisites to action being placed before it in accordance with its own liberty, it can do either this or that, can choose one and reject the other, which is freedom of specification (or specific freedom); can either act or not act, which is freedom of action (or active freedom). This liberty is also called `liberty of action from the necessity of immutability,' which is exercised when one acts without being controlled by violence or coercion, at the prompting of an internal impulse that holds itself immovably to its purpose." [6] GRH. (V, 98): "If the question be concerning the liberty of rectitude, or the powr of deciding either way, of choosing or re- jecting either good or evil, we maintain that this has perished. For, after through sin the image of God was lost, at the same time also the power to choose the good was lost (for it was part of the divine image): and, because through sin man was not only de- spoiled but also miserably corrupted, therefore, in the place of that liberty, there succeeded the unbridled impulse to evil, so that since the Fall, in men corrupt and not yet regenerate (either corrupt by their own will, as our first parents, or born from corrupt parents, ---------------End of Page 261---------------------------------------- as all their posterity), the will is free only towards that which is evil, since such corrupt and not yet regenerate men are able to do nothing but sin." (ID., V, 100): "Understanding the term `liberty' as describing the free power and faculty of choosing the good and rejecting the evil, that was possessed by Adam, we maintain that Luther was perfectly correct in saying, `Free will is a title without the thing itself, or a thing with nothing but a title.'" [7] QUEN. (II, 177): "By spiritual things are understood such emotions and actions as are prescribed by the Law and the Gospel, and can be produced only by the motion and action of the Spirit of God, so that they are the true knowledge of God, according to the measure of written revelation, detestation of sin committed, or sorrow for sins, the fear of God, faith in Christ, the new obedience, the love of God and of our neighbor." CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., 190): "The human will cannot, by its own powers, without the Holy Spirit, either begin interior and spiritual movements, or produce interior obedience of the heart, or persevere unto the end in the course commenced and perfect it. They are called spiritual acts because (Rom. 7:14) `the Law is spiritual,' that is, it is not satisfied by any external civil actions which the unregenerate can perform; but it demands such move- ments and actions (1) as cannot be performed except by the agency of the Holy Spirit; (2) as unrenewed nature not only can- not perform, but even hinders the Holy Spirit in performing." The FORM. CONC. thus defines (Sol. Dec., II, 20): "Spiritual or divine things are those which have respect to the salvation of the soul." Concerning these says QUEN. (II, 178): "We assert that the powers of the unrenewed man, both in intellect and will, whether for the beginning, or continuing, or completing these en- tirely spiritual acts which have just now been mentioned, are not only bound, impeded, or even weakened or broken, but altogether destroyed, lost, extinct and a nullity. For, in knowing and seeking an object spiritually good, the old powers in man are not renewed, the drowsy are not awakened, the infirm strengthened, nor the bound loosed; but altogether other and new powers and faculties are bestowed and put on." The proof of this position, as to the intellect, QUEN. (II, 178) derives from Eph. 5:8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:5; Rom. 1:21, 22. as to the will, from Gen. 6:5; Rom. 8:7; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; Rom. 2:5; 6:17, 20; John 8:34; Eph. 2:1, 2; Col. 2:13; Ps. 14:2, 3; Matt. 7:18. This want of freedom extends so far that QUEN. (II, 178) proceeds: "To this category also we refer the --------------------End of Page 262------------------------------- going to church for the sake of receiving information from the preached Word, the reading and hearing of the Word of God with the desire of profit, the being controlled by the desire of informa- tion from the Word, all which are the operations of antecedent and receptive grace. Here belongs also the external and historical knowledge of the biblical propositions, which transmit the mysteries of faith, 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:18; 5:8." In the Symbolical Books the principal passages are in the FORM. CONC. II. [8] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. II, 7): "We believe that man is entirely corrupt and dead to that which is good, so that there has not remained, neither can remain, in the nature of man since the Fall, and before regeneration, even a scintillation of spiritual power, by which he can, of himself, prepare himself for the grace of God, or apprehend offered grace, or be capable, in and of himself, of re- ceiving that grace, or of applying or accommodating himself to grace, or by his own powers contributing anything, either in whole or in half, or in the smallest part, to his own conversion, or of acting, operating, or co-operating, as of himself, or of his own accord." The FORM. CONC. (II, 77) therefore rejects the dogma of the Synergists, "who pretend that in spiritual things man is not abso- lutely dead to that which is good, but only deeply wounded and half dead. And although the free will is too weak to begin and, by its own powers, convert itself to God and obey with the whole heart the Law of God, yet, if the Holy Spirit make a beginning, call us by the Gospel and offer to us His grace, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life, then that free will could by its own peculiar powers, meet God, in some way contribute (something, at least, although little and languidly) to its own conversion, aid it, co- operate, prepare itself for grace, and apply it, apprehend it, embrace it, believe the Gospel, and co-operate together with the Holy Spirit to continuing and preserving its own operations." The following positions taken by Melanchthon, in the Examen Ordinandorum: "Three causes concur in conversion, the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father and the Son send that He may enkindle our hearts, and our own will assenting to and not resisting the Word of God;" as also in Ariticle XVIII of the altered Augs. Conf.: "A state of spiritual justification is effected when we are assisted by the Holy Spirit," and "Human nature cannot produce the interior emotions, true fear, etc., unless the Holy Spirit govern and assist our hearts," are theregfore regarded as synergistic. CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., I, 201) clearly comments upon the first of these proposition: "The human will does not ---------------------End of Page 263---------------------------- concur in such a manner as to aid spiritual acts by its own powers. ... But the human will is numbered among the causes of a good act, because it can resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) and destroy the work of God (Rom. 14:20). The children of God are led by the Holy Spirit, not that they should believe or do good ignorantly and unwillingly,... but grace makes them willing from being unwilling, because it works to will, Rom. 7:22." [9] QUEN. (II, 176): "In the state of corruption, liberty in the will of man is not only that of contradiction or action, but that also of contrariety or specification; not, indeed, that which is em- ployed between spiritual good and evil, for this was lost by the Fall, but that which is employed between this and that spirtiual evil in partic- ular." "By liberty of contradiction, we are to understand that lib- erty which is employed about one and the same object, within opposing limits, as to will and not to will, to do and not to do; by liberty of contrariety, that liberty which is employed either about diverse objects or about diverse acts of the same object." HOLL. (570). GRH. (V, 99): "There exists in man, therefore, freedom of will, along with the servitude of sin, for he both sins and is unable to refrain from sinning, while he nevertheless sins freely and delights to sin; although he is not moved except to evil, yet he chooses it freely, i.e., willingly and spontaneously, not unwillingly or under coercion, and is moved to it with all his energy. Add to this, that in the very choice of evils he exercises a certain liberty." HUTT. (Loc. c., 272): "Even in evil and vicious actions, free- dom of the will is very readily conceded, inasmuch as the will, not yet regenerate, most freely, i.e., not by coercion, but spontan- eously, wills, chooses, approves, and does that which is evil. Whence it happens that that which is voluntary enters into the definition of sin, so that that cannot properly be called sin which is not voluntary.... But it is here asked why this propensity to evil is said to be free, aye, freedom itself, since it is rather a sad and horrid service. But it is very properly replied that both assertions are true in a different respect; for this propensity of our will is properly described as both enslaved and free. Enslaved it is with respect to the lost image of God; for, since by the Fall the faculty of choosing the good and avoiding the evil was taken away, there was afterwards left a will which is so held captive under the tyranny of sin that it is not moved, except to the choosing of evil and avoiding the good. Gen. 8:21; Rom. 8:7. But, though the will be such a slave, yet it nevertheless is very properly called free, if we only have regard to the proper seat of sin, which is in the -----------------End of Page 264----------------------------------------- will of man. But if any one wish to assign to it also another cause, as when the Church sets the bounds of liberty concerning evil actions, that it may assign limits to human curiosity, so that the latter may not seek the cause of sin, without itself, but rather examine and discover it in itself; to this assuredly we will not object." [10] CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., I, 183): "Augustine calls the works of the present life `external things.' Because in spiritual acts there is no liberty, the will not being free, therefore, in order that freedom may not be entirely taken away from the will even in ex- ternal things, this doctrine is taught concerning the freedom of the will in external discipline. But discipline is diligence in governing external actions and restraining external members in accordance with the precepts of the Decalogue; although the interior move- ments either may not be present or may not consent.... But in external things, Paul (Rom. 1:20) ascribed even to the unregener- ate mind thoughts, knowledge, truth, etc. It is very evident that the mind was not despoiled of all intellect by the Fall, but that there is remaining, even in unregenerate men, some power of mind in perceiving and judging those things which have been subjected to reason and the senses, as in inventing and learning the various arts, in domestic life, politics, ethics, in counsel, prudence, etc. For this faculty makes the difference between rational man and irra- tional animals." MEL. (Loci. Th., 68): "Since there remains, in the nature of man, a certain judgment and choice of things which are objects of reason or sense, there remains also a choice of external civil works; wherefore the huuman will is able, by its own powers, without reno- vation, to perform in some way the external duties of the Law. This is the freedom of the will which philosophers properly attribute to man. For even Paul, discriminating betwen carnal and spiritual righteousness, admits that the unregenerate have a certain power of choice, and perform certain external deeds of the Law, such as to abstain from murder, theft, robbery; and this he calls carnal righteousness." HUTT. (272): "Reason and will in man are so inseparbly united that neither can exist without the other, but they mutually presuppose each other; so that any con- cession of the existence of reason since the Fall necessarily carries with it the concession of the faculty of the will, unless any one should wish to assert that the reason could choose or refuse any- thing without the will, which would be supremely absurd." CONF. AUG. XVIII: "Concerning free will, they teach that the human will has some liberty to attain civil righteousness and to --------------End of Page 265-------------------------------------- choose in regard to things subject to reason. But it has no power without the Holy Spirit, to attain righteousness before God or spiritual righteousness." The expression `Civil Righteousness' is more fulyly explained in the AP. of the CONF., XVIII, 70: "We do not strip the human will of liberty. The human will has liberty of choice in works and things which reason by itself comprehends. It can in some meas- ure attain to civil righteousness, or the righteousness of works, it can speak about God, it can offer to God a certain external wor- ship, obey magistrates and parents; in choosing external acts it can withhold its hand from murder, adultery, and theft. Since there remains in the nature of man reason and judgment concerning things subject to sense, there remains also the choice concerning such things and the power of attaining civil righteousness. For it is this that the Scripture calls the righteousness of the flesh, which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, by itself effects without the Holy Spirit. Although the power of concupiscence is so great that men more frequently obey their evil affections than their sound judg- ment. And the devil, who `worketh in the children of disobe- dience,' as Paul says (Eph. 2:2), does not cease to incite this imbecile nature to various sins. These are the reasons why civil righteousness also is so rare among men." For proof, CHMN. (Loc. c. Th., I, 185): "(1) Because Paul affirms that there is a certain carnal righteousness, Rom. 2:14; 10:3; Phil. 3:6. (2) Because Paul says that the Law is the object of free will, even among the unjust, 1 Tim. 1:9, i.e., the Law was given to the unregenerate to restrain the will, the affections of the heart and locomotion in externals." The later divines point out, as "the objects about which the will of man in the state of corruption is occupied, two hemispheres, one of which is called the lower and the other the higher." To the latter belong the things purely spiritual or sacred (sacrae internae) of which we have been speaking. To the former are referred HOLL. (577): "All things and actions, physcial, ethical, political, domestic, artificial, pedagogic, and divine, as far as they can be known by the light of reason and can be produced by the powers of nature aided by the general concurrence of God." GRH. (V, 101): "For we confess that some liberty remained as far as acts are concerned which are just, in the sense of moral, political, and domestic just- ice, which, according to Luther, belong to the lower hemisphere. For example, an unregenerate man can control his external loco- motion as he will, he can govern the members of his body by the dictate of right reason; he can, in some degree, attain civil justice, -------------------End of Page 266------------------------------------ and avoid the more heinous external sins that are in conflict with external discipline. Much more can he also hear with the outward ear, and meditate upon the words of God." Yet his cannot be admitted without some limitation. HOLL. (583): "The will of regenerate and unregenerate men since the Fall has the power, in regard to different things which are subject ot reason, of choosing or embracing one rather than another, although that power is languid and infirm." This weakness arises from impediments both exter- nal and internal. Among internal impediments are reckoned the following, viz., "blindness of the intellect, which causes error in deliberations, disinclination of the will to pursue the good, and a proclivity to embrace the evil, vehemence of the affections, often so great that like a torrent it carries away with it the will and dis- turbs the judgment. The external impediments are the cunning of the devil, the blandishments and terrors of the world, the control of God, subverting plans and diminishing or cutting off the ability to act." HUTT. (269) divides all the actions of men into: "evil, viz., those forbidden by the Moral Law; mediate or indifferent; and good." Concerning the mediate he says: "These again are three- fold, according as they pertain to the condition of our nature, such as to stand, sit, sleep, eat, drink, and such like, most of which are common to man and brutes, having mainly respect to the vegeta- tive, positive, appetitive, and locomotive powers of the soul; or, as they pertain to our civil and domestic conduct, such as to buy, sell, go to law, go to war, to follow a trade, and whatever pertains to civil or domestic life; or, finally, such as pertain to the external government and discipline of the Church, such as to teach and hear the Word of God, to observe certain cerremonies, to give and receive the sacraments, and similar external works, affecting the external senses. We call the actions of this second class mediate or indifferent, because by their nature, or in themselves, they are neither good nor bad; but whatever of good or evil belongs to them, this they derive from other accidetnal causes." Concerning good actions he says: "They are twofold, either morally good, such as to live honestly, to give every one his due, not to injure another; or spiritually good, such as to have proper regard for the worhsip of God, for true religion, and the eternal salvation of souls." It is only the latter that he denies to the unregenerate. Of the others he says (273): "It is clear that some liberty of the will must be conceded to the unregenerate, not only as to the despotic (despotikon) kind of actions, when, namely, the movement of the members is controlled by the command of the will, whether the affections in- wardly consent or not, but also as to the freely chosen (proairetikon), ----------------End of Page 267---------------------------------------- when the will, in accordance with a good affection, prefers honest actions." [11] This description of free will applies to man in the state of corruption. The Dogmaticians distinguish, however, a threefold condition, "the state before the Fall, the state of corruption, the state of reparation," and in each of these conditions free will is a different thing. QUEN. (II, 176): "In the state before the Fall man was free (1) from physical necessity; (2) from compulsory necess- sity; (3) from the servitude of sin; (4) from misery; (5) from the necessity of immutability; not, however (6) from the neces- sity of obligation" ("which is the determinative direction of the will for the attainment of good and the avoidance of evil, accord- ing to the rule of a higher law," HOLL. (571).)>" QUEN. (II, 183): "In the state of reparation. The restoration of the integrity lost by the Fall is either that commenced in conversion or that completed in glorification; the former occurs in this life, the latter in the life to come. In the state of incipient restoration there exists in man, when converted, or after his conversion, a freedom in re- olation to an object supernatural or purely spiritual, not only from physical necessity, but also from the necessity of immutability, because his will is no longer determined to evil, as before his con- version, but it can freely choose good, by the grace of the Holy Spirit assisting and co-operating; it can also choose spiritual evil in consequence of the remains of a carnal disposition still adhering to him. In the state of consummmated restoration, or in eternal life, there will succeed a full and perfect freedom of the human will, not only from compulsion and from the servitude of sin, but also from misery, and from the root and sense of sin; and also a liberty from internal necessity or immutability, as well that of contrariety (or, as to what relates to the kind of sin) as that of contradiction (or, as to whether the power to sin shall be exercised or not)." FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. II, 67): "There is a great difference between the baptized and the unbaptized. For since, according to the teaching of Paul (Gal. 3:27), all who are baptized put on Christ, and are truly born again, these now have free will, i.e., have again been made free, as Christ testifies (John 8:36). Whence, also, they not only hear the Word of God, but also, though not without much infirmity, can assent to it and believ- ingly embrace it." -------------------End of Page 268-------------------------------------- This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126