sisted simply in the want of original righteousness, but that that want is sin. Others admitted no original sin, but the imputation of Adam's first transgression. Others, with the Dominicans, in- sisted that the disorder of all the powers consequent on the loss of oriinnal righteousness, i. e., concupiscence, is truly and properly sin. This the Franciscans denied. Under these circumstances the pontifical legates, who attended the Council, exhorted the assem- bled fathers, that they should decide nothing as to the nature of original sin, reminding them that they were not called together to teach doctrines, but to condemn errors.^ This advice the Council endeavoured to follow, and hence its decisions are expressed in very general terms.
1. The Synod pronounces an anathema on those who do not confess that Adam, when he transgressed in paradise the command- ment of God, did immediately lose the holiness and righteousness in which he had been constituted (eonstitutus fuerat, or posit us erat) ; and that by that offence he incurred the wrath and indigna- tion of God, and thus also death and subjection to him who has the power of death, that is, the devil ; and that the whole Adam by the offence of his transgression was as to the body and the soul. clianged for the worst.
The effects of Adam's first sin upon himself therefore was : (1.) The loss of original righteousness. (2.) Death and captivity to Satan. (3.) The deterioration of his whole nature both soul and body.
2. The Synod also anathematizes those who say that the sin of Adam injured himself only, and not his posterity ; or that he lost the holiness and righteousness which he received from God, for himself only and not also for us, or that he transmitted to the whole human race only death and corporeal pains (^poenas cor- poris'), and not sin, which is the death of the soul.
It is here taught that the effects of Adam's sin upon his poster- ity are : (1.) The loss of original righteousness. (2.) Death and the miseries of this life : and (3.) Sin, or spiritual death (peeeatum, quod est mors animce). This is a distinct condemna- tion of Pelagianism, and the clear assertion of original sin, as something transmitted to all men. The nature of that sin, how- ever, is not further stated than that it is the death of the soul, which may be differently explained.
3. Those also are condemned who say that this sin of Adam, which is conveyed to all (omnibus transfusum), and inheres In
1 Moehler's Symbolik, 6th edition, p. 57.
176 PART n. ch. vm. — sin.
every one as his own sin (finest unicuique proprhiTn), can be re* moved by the powers ot" human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of our one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God by his blood, and who is made unto us righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.
It is here asserted: (1.) That original sin is conveyed by propa- gation and not, as the Pelagians say, by imitation. (2.) That it belontjs to every man and inheres in him. (3.) That it cannot be removed by any other means than the blood of Christ.
4. Tlie Svnod condemns all wlio teach that new-born children should not be baptized ; or, that although baptized for the remission o^ sins, they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which needs to be expiated in the laver of regeneration in order to attain eternal life, so that baptism, in their case, would not be true but false. Children, therefore, who cannot have committed sin, in their own persons, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that what tiiey had contracted in generation, may be purged away in r<Jgeneration.
From this it appears that according to the Council of Trent there is sin in new-born infants which needs to be remitted and washed away bv regeneration.
5. The fifth canon asserts that thi'ough the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remit- ted, and everytliing is removed wliich has the true and proper nature of sin. It is admitted that concupiscence (yel fames) remains in the baptized, against whicii believers are to contend, but it is de- clared that this concupiscence, although sometimes (as is admitted) called sin by the Apostle, is not truly and pi'operly sin in the re- generated.
This is all that the Council teaches under the caption of oi-iginal sin, except to say that they do not intend their decisions to apply to the Virgin Mary. Whether she was the subject of original sin, as the Dominicans, after Thomas Aquinas, maintained, or whether she was immaculately conceived, as zealously asserted by the Fran- ciscans after Duns Scotus, the Synod leaves undecided.
In the sixth session when treating of justification (i. e., regen- eration and sanctification), the Council decides several points, which go to determine the view its members took of the nature of original sin. In the canons adopted in that session, it is among other things, declared : (1.) That men cannot without divine grace through Jesus Christ, by their own works, i. g., works performed in their own strength, be justified before God. (2.) Tliat grace
§6.] DOCTRINE OF THE CHUPwLH OF ROME. 177
is not given simply to render good works more easy. (3.) That men cannot believe, hope, love, or rejjent so as to secure regen- erating grace without the preventing grace of God (^sine prce- venienti Spiritus inspiratione, atque ejus adjutorio). (4.) Men can cooperate with this preventing grace, can assent to, or reject it. (5.) Men have not lost their liberum arhitrium, ability to good or evil by the fall. (6.) All works done before regeneration are not sinful.
From all tliis it appears that while the Council of Trent rejected the Pelagian doctrine of man's plenary ability since the full, and the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that men can begin the work of refor- mation and conversion ; it no less clearly condemns the Augustin- ian doctrine of the entire inability of man to do anything spiritually good, whereby he may prepare or dispose himself for conversion, or merit the regenerating grace of God.
TJie True Doctrine of the Church of Rome.
What was the true doctrine of the Ciiurch of Rome as to origi- nal sin, remained as much in doubt after the decisions of this Coun- cil as it had been before. Each party interpreted its canons accord- ing to their own views. The Synod declares that all men are born infected with original sin ; but whether that sin consisted simply in the guilt of Adam's first sin ; or in the want of original righteous- ness ; or in concupiscence, is left undecided. And therefore all these views continued to be maintained by the theologians of the Romish Church. The older Protestants generally regarded the canons of the Council of Trejit as designed to obscure the subject, and held that the real Doctrine of the Church involved the denial of any original sin in the sense of sin, subjective or inherent. In this view, many, if not the majority of modern theologians concur. Winer (in his "Comparative Darstelhing,") Guericke (in his " Symbolik "), Koellner (in his " Symbolik "), Baur (in his " An- swer to Moehler"), and Dr. Shedd, in his " History of Christian Doctrine," all represent the Church of Rome as teaching that orig- inal sin is merely negative, the want of original righteousness, and as denying that there is anything subjective in the state of human nature as men are born into the world, which has the proper nature of sin. The reasons which favour this view of the subject, are, —
1. The prevailing doctrine of the schoolmen and of the Romish theologians as to the nature of sin. According to Protestants, " Quidquid a norma justitiae in Deo dissidet, et cum ea pugnat,