1 vero est bona relinquere, quæ summopere sunt tenenda. Vel certe peccatum in opere est, delictum in cogitatione; in Ezech. lib. ii. Hom. 9, p. 1404. He also distinguishes between peccatum et crimen; every crimen is a peccatum, but not vice versa. No one is sine peccato, but many are sine crimine (Tit. i. 6; 1 John i. 8). The peccata only stain the soul, the crimina kill it; Moral. xxi. c. 12. The iniquitas, impietas, etc., are also represented as modifications of sin; Moral. xi. 42, xxii. 10. The deepest root of all sin, according to Gregory, is pride; pride produces envy, wrath, etc. The seat of sin is both in the soul and in the body; the devil is one of the chief agents in inducing man to commit sin; comp. Lau, s. 379 ff. ... (5) Augustine still endeavours to reconcile the mystic interpretation of Paradise with the historical; De Civit. Dei, xiii. 21. Moreover, he sees all individual sins comprised in the primitive sin; comp. Enchiridion ad Laurentium, c. 45: In illo peccato uno possunt intelligi plura peccata, si unum ipsum in sua quasi membra singula dividatur. Nam et superbia est illic, quia homo in sua potius esse quam in Dei potestate dilexit; et sacrilegium, quia Deo non credidit; et homicidium, quia se præcipitavit in mortem; et fornicatio spiritalis, quia integritas mentis humanæ serpentina suasione corrupta est; et furtum quia cibus prohibitus usurpatus est; et avaritia, quia plus quam illi sufficere debuit, adpetivit; et si quid aliud in hoc uno admisso diligenti consideratione inveniri potest. Gregory the Great adopts the literal interpretation; Mor. xxxi, comp. Lau, s. 377 ff. The devil tempted our first parents in a threefold manner, gula, vana gloria, and avaritia. The attack itself was fourfold, by suggestio, delectatio, consensus, and defensionis audacia; Mor. iv. c. 27. $108. Consequences of the First Sin, and Freedom of the Will A. Hahn, Ephräm der Syrer über die Willensfreiheit des Menschen, nebst den 'This distinction, however, had been already made by Augustine; see below, § 111, 2. Berücksichtigung verdienen (in Illgens Denkschrift der hist. theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig 1819, 2, s. 30 ff.). [Comp. Landerer, Verhältniss von Gnade und Freiheit, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1857, s. 556, 572, on Chrysostom, s. 549-561. Kuhn, d. angebliche Pelagianismus der voraugustinischen Kirchenväter, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1853. Wörter, Christl. Lehre über d. Verhältniss von Gnade u. Freiheit, Band i. 1856, Band ii. 1, 1860.] Even those theologians who kept themselves free from the influence of the Augustinian system, held that the sin of Adam was followed by disastrous consequences to the human race; but restricted these evil consequences (as the Fathers of the preceding period had done) to the mortality of the body, the hardships and miseries of life, also admitting that the moral powers of man had been enfeebled by the fall. Thus Gregory of Nazianzus, in particular (to whom Augustine appealed in preference to all others), maintained that both the vous and the vxý have been considerably impaired by sin, and regarded the perversion of the religious consciousness seen in idolatry, which previous teachers had ascribed to the influence of demons, as an inevitable effect of the first sin. But he was far from asserting the total depravity of mankind, and the entire loss of free-will (1). On the contrary, the doctrine of the freedom of the will continued to be distinctly maintained by the Greek Church (2). Athanasius himself, the father of orthodoxy, maintained in the strongest terms that man has the ability of choosing good as well as evil, and even allowed exceptions from original sin, alleging that several individuals, even before Christ, had remained free from it (3). Cyril of Jerusalem also maintained that the life of man begins in a state of innocence, and that sin enters only with the use of free-will. Similar views were entertained by Ephraem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, and others (4). Chrysostom, whose whole tendency was of a practical and moral kind, insisted most of all upon the liberty of man and his moral self-determination, and passed a severe censure upon those who endeavoured to excuse their own defects by ascribing the origin of sin to the fall of Adam (5). (1) Orat. xxxviii. 12, p. 670, xliv. 4, p. 837, xiv. 25, p. 275, xix. 13, p. 372; Carmen iv. v. 98, and other passages quoted by Ullmann, s. 421 ff. Comp. especially the interesting parallel which is there drawn between Gregory and Augustine, as well as between the expressions of the former in the original, and the (corrupt) translation of the latter. "Gregory by no means taught the doctrines afterwards propounded by Pelagius and his followers; but if all his sentiments be duly considered, it will be found that he is far more of a Pelagian than of an Augustinian," Ullmann, 1.c. s. 439 f. (2) According to Methodius (in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 234, p. 295), man does not possess the power either of having desires, or of not having them (ἐνθυμεῖσθαι ἢ μὴ ἐνθυμεῖσθαι), but he is at liberty either to gratify (χρῆσθαι) them or not. Comp. Nemes. De Nat. Hom. c. 41: Πᾶσα τοίνυν ἀνάγκη τὸν ἔχοντα τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ κύριον εἶναι πράξεων. γὰρ μὴ κύριος εἴη πράξεων, περιττῶς ἔχει τὸ βουλεύεσθαι. (3) Athan. Contra Gent. c. 2, p. 2: Εξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐκ ἦν κακία, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ νῦν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐστὶν, οὐδ ̓ ὅλως κατ' αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχει αὐτή, cf. Contra Arian. Or. 3 (4). Opp. t. i. p. 582, 583 : Πολλοὶ γὰρ οὖν ἅγιοι γεγόνασι καθαροὶ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. (He alludes to Jeremiah and John the Baptist; but they cannot properly be called πολλοί.) «Nevertheless, death reigned. . . even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (Rom. v. 14). (4) Cyr. Cat. iv. 19: Ελθόντες εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ἀναμάρτητοι, νῦν ἐκ προαιρέσεως ἁμαρτάνομεν. 21: Αὐτεξούσιός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ, καὶ ὁ διάβολος τὸ μὲν ὑποβάλλειν δύναται· τὸ δὲ καὶ ἀναγκάσαι παρὰ προαίρεσιν οὐκ ἔχει τὴν ἐξουσίαν. Cat. xvi. 23: Εἰ γάρ τις ἀβλεπτῶν μὴ καταξιοῦται τῆς χάριτος, μὴ μεμφέσθω τῷ πνεύματι, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπιστία. (Oudin, Comm. p. 461-464, attempted in vain to contest the genuineness of the catecheses favourable to Semi - Pelagianism.) — Concerning Ephraem, see the above dissertation. Basil the Great delivered a discourse περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου, the authenticity of which was denied by Garnier (t. ii. p. xxvi.), but in modern times again defended by Pelt and Rheinwald (Homiliarium Patrist. i. 2, p. 192). In this, though he admitted the depravity of mankind, he asserted that human liberty and divine grace must co-operate. Comp. also the Hom. de Spir. S., and Klose, l.c. s. 59 ff. [cf. Landerer, ubi supra, s. 556].—Gregory Nyss. also takes for granted a universal bias to sin (De Orat. Dom. Or. v. Opp. i. p. 751 s.), but finds no sin in infants; Orat. de infantibus qui præmature abripiuntur (Opp. iii. p. 317 s.). (5) See Hom. in Ep. ad Rom. xvi. p. 241; in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. xii. p. 805 D; in Evang. Joh. Hom. xvii. p. 115 C; in 1 Epist. ad Cor. Hom. ii. p. 514 D; in Ps. 1. Hom. ii. (Opp. t. iii. p. 869 D); all of which are quoted by Münscher, von Cölln, i. s. 363; see also Ep. ad Phil. Hom. i. (especially on Phil. i. 6). "Chrysostom was so zealous for morality, that he must have considered it a point of special importance to deprive men of every ground of excuse for the neglect of moral effort. His practical sphere of labour in the cities of Antioch and Constantinople gave a still greater impulse to this tendency. For in these great capitals he met with many who sought to attribute their want of Christian activity to the defects of human nature, and the power of Satan or of fate," Neander, Kg. iii. 2, s. 1369 f. Comp. his Chrysostomus, i. s. 51, 283 ff. But Chrysostom urged quite as strongly the existence of depravity in opposition to a false moral pride. Hom. vi. Montf. t. 12 (in Neander, Chrysostomus, ii. s. 36, 37), comp. Wiggers, i. s. 442. $109. The Opinions of the Latin Teachers before Augustine, and of Augustine before the Pelagian Controversy. During this period, as well as the preceding, the theologians of the western Church were more favourable than those of the eastern to the Augustinian doctrine. Even Arnobius speaks of a connatural infirmity, making man prone to sin (1). Hilary and Ambrose of Milan taught the defilement of sin by birth; Ambrose appealed especially to Ps. li. 5 in support of original sin, but without determining to what extent every individual shares in the common guilt (2). Nevertheless, neither of them excluded the liberty of man from the work of moral reformation (3). Even Augustine himself, at an earlier period of his life, defended human freedom, in opposition to the Manichæans (4). (1) Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i. 27: Proni ad culpas et ad libidinis varios appetitus, vitio sumus infirmitatis ingenitæ. (2) Hilar. Tract. in Ps. lviii. p. 129; in Ps. cxviii. litt. 22, 6, p. 366; in Matt. xviii. 6: Ovis una, homo intelligendus est, et sub homine uno, universitas sentienda est; sed in unius Adæ errore omne hominum genus aberravit; and some other passages (in Münscher, von Cölln, s. 354). Cf. Neander, Dg. s. 357. Ambrose, Apol. David. c. 11 (Opp. i. p. 846): Antequam nascamur, maculamur contagio, et ante usuram lucis, originis ipsius excipimus injuriam; in iniquitate concipimur: non expressit, utrum parentum, an nostra. Et in delictis generat unumquemque mater sua; nec hic declaravit, utrum in delictis suis mater pariat, an jam sint et aliqua delicta nascentis. Sed vide, ne utrumque intelligendum sit. Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu. Et si nec unius diei infans sine peccato est, multo magis nec illi materni conceptus dies sine peccato sunt. Concipimur ergo in peccato parentum et in delictis eorum nascimur. Sed et ipse partus habet contagia sua, nec unum tantummodo habet ipsa natura contagium. [Ambrose, Apol. David. § 71: Omnes in primo homine peccavimus et per naturæ successionem culpæ quoque ab uno in omnes transfusa est successio.] Comp. De Poenit. i. 3 (Opp. iii. p. 498): Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur, quorum ipse ortus in vitio est, sicut habes lectum, dicente David: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in delictis peperit me mater mea. -In Ev. Luke i. 17 (Opp. i. p. 737); Epp. Class. ii. (Opp. iii. p. 1190), and some other passages (in Münscher, von Cölln, s. 355; after another edition ?). (3) Hilar. Tract. in Psalm. cxviii. lit. 15, p. 329: Est quidem in fide manendi a Deo munus, sed incipiendi a nobis origo est. Et voluntas nostra hoc proprium ex se habere debet, ut velit. Deus incipienti incrementum dabit, quia consummationem per se infirmitas nostra non obtinet; meritum tamen adipiscendæ consummationis est ex initio voluntatis. Comp. HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. I. 2 D |