Chapter — Slater, Foundation
Chapter V: Sin
SIN is a voluntary transgression of the moral law. Voluntariness is of the very essence of sin. Anything that prevents an act being voluntary prevents it being sinful. A motor-car runs over a drunken man lying in the middle of a lonely road at night. The driver could not see him, he had no reason to suspect that he was there. The act was purely involuntary. A little child runs in front of his car while driving along the street. The driver saw the danger but could not pull up in time. The child was knocked down, but again the act on the part of the driver was purely involuntary. In both cases common sense acquits the driver of all blame; there is no reason why the most sensitive conscience should be troubled at the mishap.
And so if man is not free, if his every action is determined by the antecedent conditions so that it necessarily follows from them, then man cannot commit sin. He may be dangerous and may have to be put out of the way or shut up like a mad dog, but if he is not free he cannot help doing what he does, and he is not responsible for it. If he does wrong it is his misfortune, not his fault.
Luther denied free will and consequently he should have denied in man the possibility of sin. He did not do that, but his denial of free will deeply colored his view of sin. According to Luther, the fall of our first parents so entirely corrupted man that now it is his nature to sin, he cannot help it. Sin is no longer a work or an action, it is our very nature. Let a man do his best to be good, still his every action will inevitably be bad, he commits sin with every breath that he draws, Luther held that original justice was of the essence of man's nature, and so by its loss that nature was not only corrupted, it was destroyed as far as its spiritual forces were concerned. He denied that evil is a negation and asserted that it was something positive, so that sin has become part of man's nature.¹ As Luther himself says: "It is true that I stand before you as a sinner, that sin is my nature, the beginning of my existence, my conception, not to mention my words, works, thoughts, and subsequent life. How should I be without sin, when I was made in sin, and sin is my very nature and origin?"² in the just, but through the instrumentality of faith it is covered over as with a cloak by the merits of Christ, so that it is no longer imputed to the sinner as long as faith remains.
According to Luther, concupiscence is not merely the consequence of, and the stimulus to sin, but it is very sin itself. The motions of our sensual appetite, however involuntary they may be, are sins in the strict and proper sense. Sin remains even
¹ Mausbach, "Catholic Moral Teaching," p. 158. J. Verres, "Luther: An Historical Portrait," p. 127.
² Mausbach, Op. cit. p. 159.
Herein lay for Luther the great value and significance of his doctrine of justification by faith alone. It thrust good works into the background, they became matters of less than secondary importance. Works of special merit, of counsel, of supererogation were rejected as Papist inventions; any works of ours are comparatively matters of indifference. But if this is to be held concerning good works it follows that our bad actions are also matters of very small importance. Provided that we lay hold of Christ's merits by faith, and accept the free offer of the Father's love through Christ, we may and we should utterly disregard our own deeds, whether good or bad. The good works do not benefit the believer, nor do the bad actions harm him. Past bad actions remain, bad actions continue to be performed, no human being can help them, but, thanks to saving faith, they are all covered over by the merits of Christ, and washed away in the Saviour's blood.
Holy Scripture, indeed, teaches that even the just man cannot avoid slight venial faults — the just man falls seven times a day. Luther denied the distinction between mortal and venial sin, or rather gave the distinction a new meaning. For Luther all sins in a believer, however enormous they might be, were venial; and in an unbeliever all sins were mortal. As Harnack says: "Luther considered it a harmful error to distinguish sins according to the substance of the deed done and not according to the faith or want of faith in the agent. A believer commits just as grievous sins as an unbeliever, but in the case of the believer they are forgiven and not imputed to him, while in that of the unbeliever they are retained and imputed, and so to a believer that sin is pardonable which is mortal to an unbeliever."¹ whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and, therefore, in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated: whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin." power, the liberty, to do right or to do wrong. Canons 5, 6 and 7 of the sixth Session all treat of this subject. "If any one says that man's free will after Adam's sin is lost and extinguished, or that it is a matter of words only, yea of words without matter, in fine a figment introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.
These Lutheran doctrines have much more than a merely historical interest. They color the opinions of many non-Catholic writers on ethics who condemn the casuistry of the Catholic Church and proclaim that provided a man's aim is set on his ideal he does well not to trouble himself much about the details of a moral life.
The Calvinistic doctrine is very similar and leads to similar results. The ninth article of the Church of England is couched in general terms, offering a loophole here and there for various interpretations, but for all that the article is distinctly Lutheran. It is as follows:
"Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam,
¹ Dogmengesch. iii. 887.
These doctrines of the reformers contain very serious errors in morality according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. In the Council of Trent she solemnly condemned those doctrines. She vindicated for human nature, even after the Fall, the "If any one says that it is not in man's power to do wrong but that God works evil even as He does good deeds, not only by permitting them but properly and by Himself, so that the betrayal of Judas not less than the call of Paul is His works, let him be anathema.
"If any one says that all works that are done before justification, in whatever way they are done, are really sins, and deserve the hatred of God, or that a man sins the more grievously the more vehemently he strives to dispose himself for grace, let him be anathema."
The teaching of Trent is vouched for by Scripture and by the common sense of mankind. Luther himself constantly took it for granted when he was not arguing against it, just as the modern philosopher or evolutionist does in ordinary life. Catholics have constantly appealed to such plain texts as that found in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (xxxi. 8, 9, 10): "Blessed is the rich man... that hath not put his trust in money nor in treasures. Who is he, and we will praise him? For he hath done wonderful things in his life. Who hath been tried thereby and made perfect, he shall have glory everlasting. He that could have transgressed and hath not transgressed, and could do evil things and hath not done them." that concupiscence remains in them that are baptized, which being left for conflict cannot harm those who do not consent to it, but manfully strive against it by the grace of Christ Jesus, since he who strives lawfully will be crowned. The holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood that this concupiscence which the Apostle sometimes calls sin is called sin because it is properly sin in those that are regenerated, but because it is a consequence of sin and a stimulus to sin. If any one holds the contrary let him be anathema."¹ According to Catholic teaching, sin can only be committed by the free and deliberate consent of the will to what is known to be morally wrong. Frequently, the inordinate motions of the sensual appetite arise without the will having anything to do with them. The will neither causes them nor yields consent to them. In these circumstances the inordinate motions of the sensual appetite cannot be sins in spite of Luther and the Anglican article.
Luther's doctrine about concupiscence, which seems to be approved by the ninth Anglican article, is a doctrine of moral despair. It is reprobated and condemned by the Council of Trent:
“This holy Synod acknowledges and feels ¹ Sess. v. c. 5.
The Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins is also endorsed by the Council of Trent.
"For those who are the sons of God love Christ, and those who love Him, as He Himself testifies, keep His commandments, which they can do with His grace. For although in this mortal life, however holy and just, they may sometimes fall into at least slight and daily faults which are also called venial sins, not on that account do they cease to be just."¹
Failure to keep Christ's commandments in serious matters deprives the soul of the friendship and grace of God, but even the just while remaining the friends of God sometimes fall into smaller faults. This doctrine is plainly contained in numerous passages of the Old and New Testament. St. Paul in several places gives lists of griev-
¹ Sess. vi. c. 11.
ous sins which exclude those who commit them from the kingdom of heaven.¹ They cause spiritual death, as the same Apostle phrases it elsewhere. On the other hand, we are told that the just man falls seven times, that is often even though he remain just.² Every idle word, indeed, must be accounted for, and in many things we all offend, yet we may trust that our heavenly Father does not deal with us more harshly than an earthly father does. An earthly father does not treat a petulant child as if it had tried to take his life.
The essence of a Christian life consists in the love of God and of our neighbor. But this love is not satisfied by mere thoughts and sentiments, however lofty. The ideal must descend to the details of every day life. If you love Me keep My commandments. Love must show itself in action, in avoiding evil and doing good for God's sake.
¹ 1 Cor. vi. 9; Gal. v. 19; Eph. v. 5, etc.