sin, tliat it is imputed only because it is transmitted in ordinary gen- eration ? " ' If a man or a church hold a theory of the nature of sin which is incomjtatible with the doctrine of original sin, it is argued, the existence of any such sin is thereby denied. (2.) An- other reason urged in favour of the position that the Church of Rome denies original sin, is drawn from what that Church teaches of original righteousness. If original righteousness be a supernat- ural gift not belonging to the integrity of man's nature, its loss leaves him in the state in which he came from the hands of hi.s Maker. And that state cannot be sinful unless God be the author of sin. Even Bellarmiii, who contends for original sin, in a cer- tain sense, still savs that man since the fall is in the same state that Adam was as he was created. " Non magis differt status hom- inis post lapsum Adae a statu ejusdem in puris naturalibus, quam differat spoliatus a nudo, neque deterior est humana natura, si culpam originalem detrahas, neque magis ignorantia et infirmi- tate laborat, quam esset et laboraret in puris naturalibus condita. Proinde corruptio naturae non ex alicujus doni naturalis carentia, neque ex alicujus malae qualitatis accessu, sed ex sola doni super- naturalis ob Adse peccatum amissione profluxit.^ (3.) The Coun- cil of Trent expressly declares that concupiscence in the baptized, i. e., the regenerated, is not of the nature of sin. Then it cannot be in the unbaptized ; for its nature is not changed by baptism.
On the other hand, however, it may be urged, (1.) That the Council of Trent expressly declares against the Pelagian doctrine, that Adam's sin injured only himself, and asserts that our whole nature, soul, and bod}^, was thereby changed for the worse. (2.) They assert that we derived from Adam not merely a mortal nature, but sin which is the death of the soul. (3.) That new-born infants need baptism for the remission of sin, and that what is re- moved in the baptism of infimts, veram et propriam peccati rationem liahet. (4.) The Roman Catecliism teaches ^ that " we are born in sin," that we are oppressed with corruption of nature (naturce viiio premimur') and,'^ that we nihil shnus, nisi putida caro ; that the virus of sin penetrates to the very bones, i. e., rationem, et vcluntatem^ quce maxime solidce sunt animce partes. This last passage does not refer exi)ressly to original sin, but to the state of men generally as sinners. Nevertheless, it indicates the view taken by the Roman Church as to the present condition of human
' Katltolicisnms und Protestanlismus, Tubingen, 1836; second edit. p. 92, note.
2 De Grnt'ia Primi Hominis, cap. v.; Disputationes, edit. Paris, 1608, vol. iv. p. 16, d, a
s P. iii. c. 10, q». 4; Streitwolf, Libri Symbolici Ecclesia Catkolicce, vol. i. p. 579.
« P. iv. c 14, qu. 5; Ibul. pp. 675, 676.
180 PART II. ch. vm. — sin.
nature. (5.) Bellarmin, who is often quoted to prove that Ro- manists make original sin merely the loss of original righteousness, says : " Si privationem justitige originalis ita velit esse effectum peccati, ut non sit etiam ipsa vere proprieque peccatum, Concilio Tridentino manifeste repugnat, neque distingui potest a sententia Catharini " (who made original sin to consist solely in the imputa- tion of Adam's first sin).
From all this it appears that although the doctrine of the Roman Church is neither logical nor self-consistent, it is nevertheless true that that Church does teach the doctrine of original sin, in the sense of a sinful corruption of nature, or of innate, hereditary sin- fulness. It is also to be observed that all parties in the Roman Chui'ch, before and after the Council of Trent, however much they differed in other points, united in teaching the imputation of Adam's sin ; i. e., that for that sin the sentence of condemnation passed upon all men.
§ 7. Protestant Doctrine of Sin.
The Protestant Churches at the time of the Reformation did not attempt to determine the nature of sin philosophically. They re- garded it neither as a necessary limitation ; nor as a negation of being ; nor as the indispensable condition of virtue ; nor as having its seat in man's sensuous nature ; nor as consisting in selfishness alone ; nor as being, like pain, a mere state of consciousness, and not an evil in the sight of God. Founding their doctrine on their moral and religious consciousness and upon the Word of God, they declared sin to be the transgression of, or want of conformity to the divine law. In this definition all classes of theologians, Lu- theran and Reformed, agree. According to Melancthon, " Pecca- tum recte definitur dvo/Aia, sen discrepantia a lege Dei, h. e., defec- tus naturae et actionura pugnans cum lege Dei, easdemque ex ordine justitise divinge ad poenam obligans." Gerhard says : ^ " Peccatum " seu " dvo/jiia " est " aberratio a lege, sive non congruentia cum lege, sive ea in ipsa natura hserat, sive in dictis, factis ac concupiscentiae motibus, inveniatur." Baier says :^ " Carentia conformitatis cum lecre." Vitringa says:^ " Forma peccati est disconvenientia actus, habitus, aut status hominis cum divina lege."
It is included in these definitions, (1.) That sin is a specific evil, differing from all other forms of evil. (2.) That sin stands
1 Loci Theoloyici, xi. i. 5; edit. Tubingen, 1766, vol. v. p. 2, b.
2 Compendium Theologioe, edit. Frankfort, 1739, p. 346.
Docirina ChrisiiancB Religionis, X- 7 ; edit. Lyons, 1762, vol. ii. pp. 285, 286.