'All this theory of original sin is built simply on the supposition
that the early chapters of Genesis represent literal history. It falls
to the ground if they are myth and not history.' Once again, this is
not at all the case. The Christian doctrine of sin finds its chief
authorisation in Christ's attitude towards it. Sin (if Christ's
witness is true) is not nature; it does not represent God's intention,
but something that has baffled for a time God's intention, something
that Christ is come to conquer. Moreover, this doctrine of sin is not
a mere dogma enunciated on external authority; it finds its
verification in experience. The moral experience of Christendom
confirms it, and this experience of eighteen centuries reflects itself
inevitably on the whole of human life. What interprets sin within this
area interprets it through the whole history. With this authority of
Christ, verified in the Christian experience, as his firm foundation,
the Christian does not hesitate to see in the early chapters of
Genesis the action of the inspiring Spirit. It was only the inspiring
Spirit Which could assure man that the whole universe was of God's
making and very good, that the state in which he found himself
represented not his nature, as God meant it to be, but the result of
his rebellion, the result, moreover, which God meant to counter-work,
nay, which in gradual process He was counter-working. In all the
account then of the creation, of the nature of man, of the origin of
sin, the Christian sees an action of the inspiring Spirit. He sees it
all the more when he compares the record of Genesis with those which
are parallel to it in other races. But if an Irenaeus, a Clement, an
Athanasius, an Anselm could treat the record or part of it as rather
allegorical than historical, we can use the same liberty. This is not
our present subject. All I want to make clear is that the Christian
doctrine of sin rests on a far broader and far surer foundation than
the belief that the early chapters of Genesis belong to one form or
stage of inspired literature rather than to another. It rests on the
strong foundation of the authority of our Lord, accepted and verified
by man's moral consciousness.
[609] A sermon preached before the University of Cambridge, at Great
St. Mary's Church, on Sunday, March 17, 1889, by the Rev. Charles
Gore, and printed in the _Guardian_, March 27. A paragraph of
practical exhortation is omitted at the end. Some apology is no doubt
needed for the introduction of a Sermon into a volume of Essays. But
it was felt (1) that there was under the circumstances an advantage in
producing what was not written in view of the criticisms on _Lux
Mundi_; (2) that the sermon was not specially homiletic.
[610] The first is that of the Manichaeans and some Gnostics. The
second that of the Platonists and other Gnostics. But both the
theories represent tendencies very commonly at work both among
Orientals and in Europe. Recently John Stuart Mill was disposed to
embrace the latter theory: see _Three Essays on Religion_, 3rd
edition, London, 1874, pp. 58, 243.
[611] _The Service of Man_, London, 1887, p. 295. Cf. p. 293, 'It will
perhaps be said that this view does away with moral responsibility....
To which the answer is, that the sooner the idea of moral
responsibility is got rid of, the better it will be for society and
moral education.'
[612] See, for instance, Tertullian, _de paenit._ 3; Anselm, _Cur Deus
Homo_, i. 11.
[613] Augustine, _de Trin._ i. 10. 21.
[614] Aug. _de mor. Man._ ii. 3, 'Ut ab essentia deficiant et ad non
esse tendant? quod malum generale esse clamat verissima ratio.' _Op.
imp. c. Jul._ i. 114, 'Non enim potest esse ullum malum nisi in aliquo
bono; quia non potest esse nisi in aliqua natura; omnis autem natura,
in quantum natura est, bonum est.'
[615] For references, see p. 290, note.
[616] Rom. v. 6: see Godet's _Commentary_ in loc. Clark's _Foreign
Theol. Libr._ i. p. 416; and cf. Col. ii. 11, τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός.
[617] S. Luke xvi. 9.
[618] See Origen, _C. Cels._ iv. 65-66; Athan. _C. Gentes_, 6-7; and
cf. the index to S. Augustine _s. v._ malum. So far, however, as each
individual identifies himself with sin, it becomes 'his nature': a
false nature, obscuring the true, but never annihilating it; cf.
Tertullian, _de An._ 41, 'Naturae corruptio alia natura est,' etc.;
and Bernard, _in Cant. Serm._ 82. 2,--admirable passages.
[619] See in Mozley, _Lectures_, etc., x. p. 159.
[620] Cf. in explanation of this, the Preface, p. xviii.
[621] There is a fundamental mistake in the popular excuse for sensual
sin--that it is 'natural.' The mistake lies in the idea that man's
animal and spiritual natures are separable, that he can live as pure
animal in one part of his life, and pure spirit in another. But as a
fact man's life is only lived 'according to nature,' where every part
of it is lived 'in flesh and in spirit': the spiritual motive must
control the bodily organ. Only so are his acts really human. If he
tries to act as a mere animal he becomes sinful. The evidence of this
lies in the fact that while the physical nature of animals contains
within itself the check on sensual indulgence, the check in man's case
lies in his spiritual faculties. You can have a 'dissipated' man, i.e.
a man whose bodily impulses are uncontrolled by will or spirit; you
cannot have a 'dissipated' animal.
[622] It is not intended as a _complete_ account, cf. Rom. ii. 14-15.
[623] In answer to the question whether Adam was formed perfect or
imperfect τέλειος ἤ ἀτελής, Clement replies: 'They shall learn from us
that he was not perfect [i.e. complete in development, τέλειος] in
respect of his creation, but in a fit condition to receive virtue.'
Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 12. 96. Cp. Iren. _c. haer._ iv. 38.
[624] But we can recognize that before civilisation had developed the
checks which society supplies against abrupt deterioration, collapse
into savagery would have been much more rapid than it can be in a more
developed state.
[625] Cf. Aubrey Moore's _Evolution and Christianity_ (Oxford House
Papers), pp. 32-3. 'The change which took place at the Fall was a
change in the moral region; but it could not be without its effect
elsewhere. Even the knowledge of nature becomes confused, without the
governing truth of the relation of man to God. The evolution which
should have been the harmonious development of the whole man, is
checked and impeded in one part, and that the highest part of his
nature. And therefore, in spite of all the physical and intellectual
advance which man has made, he is always and everywhere the worse for
the Fall. However great his development has been, it is still a
retarded development, a development slower than it need have been,
less regular and less sure than God meant it to be.'
[626] Aug. _De gen. ad litt._ vi. 36, 'Mortalis erat conditione
corporis animalis.'
[627] Athan. _de Incarn._ 4.
[628] Cf. Westcott's _Ep. to the Hebrews_, p. 54 (on Hebr. ii. 16).
[629] Athan. _C. Gentes_ 7; cf. Aug. on Gen. iii. 18 (_De Gen. ad
litt._ iii. 18, 28), where it is said that it is difficult to suppose
that 'thorns and thistles' were first produced on the occasion of sin:
but we may understand that they then first began to be obstacles to
man in the cultivation of the ground: 'spinas et tribulos pariet
_tibi_.'