Milton, Par. Lost, 9:414 ? ?Where likeliest he [Satan] might find The only two of mankind, but in them The whole included race, his purpos?d prey.? Augustine, De Pec. Mer. et Rem., 3:7 ? ?In Adamo omnes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura adhuc omnes ille unus fuerunt?; De Civ. Dei, 13, 14 ? ?Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno, quando omnes fuimus ille unus...Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata et distributa forma in qua singuli viveremus, sed jam natura erat seminalis ex qua propagaremur.? On Augustine?s view, see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:43- 45 (System Doct., 2:338-339) ? In opposition to Pelagius who made sin to consist in single acts, ?Augustine emphasized the sinful state. This was a deprivation of original righteousness + inordinate love. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilarius, Ambrose had advocated traducianism, according to which, without their personal participation, the sinfulness of all is grounded in Adam?s free act. They incur its consequences as an evil, which is, at the same time, punishment of the inherited fault. But Irenaus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, say Adam was not simply a single individual but the universal man. We were comprehended in him so that in him we sinned. On the first view, the posterity was passive and on the second, they were active, in Adam?s sin. Augustine represents both views, desiring to unite the universal sinfulness involved in traducianism with the universal will and guilt involved in cooperation with Adam?s sin. Adam, therefore, to him, is a double conception and = individual + race.?

Mozley on Predestination, 402 ? ?In Augustine, some passages refer all wickedness to original sin; some account for different degrees of evil by different degrees of original sin. (Op. imp. cont. Julianum, 4:128 ? ?Malitia aliis minor, in aliis major est?). In some passages, the individual seems to add to original sin (De Correp. et Gratia, c. 13 ? ?Per liberum arbitrium alia insuper addiderunt, alii majus, alii minus, sed omnes mali.? De Grat. et Lib. Arbit., 2: I ? ?Added to the sin of their birth sins of their own commission?; 2:4 ? ?Neither denies our liberty of will, whether to choose an evil or a good life, nor attributes to it so much power that it can avail anything without God?s grace, or that it can change itself from evil to good? ). ? These passages seem to show that, side by side with the race-sin and its development, Augustine recognized a domain of free personal decision, by which each man could to some extent modify his character, and make himself more or less depraved.

The theory of Augustine was not the mere result of Augustine?s temperament or of Augustine?s sins. Many men have sinned like Augustine, but their intellects have only been benumbed and have been led into all manner of unbelief. It was the Holy Spirit who took possession of the temperament, and so overruled the sin as to make it a glass through

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment