Point 2: Of Original Sin
The next point to be handled, is concerning original sin after baptism: that is, how far it remains after baptism. A point to be well considered, because hereupon depend many points of popery.
1. Our consent.
Conclusion 1. They say, natural corruption after baptism is abolished, and so say we: but let us see how far it is abolished. In original sin are three things: 1, the punishment, which is the first and second death. 2, Guiltiness, which is the binding up of the creature to punishment. 3, the fault or the offending of God, under which I comprehend our guiltiness in Adam's first offense, as also the corruption of the heart: which is, a natural inclination and proneness to anything that is evil or against the law of God. For the first we say, that after baptism in the regenerate, the punishment of original sin is taken away: There is no condemnation (says the Apostle) to them that be in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). For the second, that is the guiltiness, we further agree and say; that is also taken away in them that are born anew: for considering there is no condemnation to them, there is nothing to bind them to punishment. Yet this caveat must be remembered, namely that the guiltiness is removed from the person regenerate, not from the sin in the person; but of this more afterward. Thirdly, the guilt in Adam's first offense is pardoned. And touching the corruption of the heart, I affirm two things: 1, that very power or strength whereby it reigns in man, is taken away in the regenerate. 2, that this corruption is abolished (as also the fault of every actual sin past) so far forth as it is the fault and sin of the man in whom it is. Indeed it remains till death, and it is sin considered in itself, so long as it remains, but it is not imputed to the person: and in that respect is as though it were not; it being pardoned.
2. The dissent or difference.
Thus far we consent with the Church of Rome: now the difference between us stands not in the abolishment, but in the manner, and the measure of the abolishment of this sin.
Papists teach, that original sin is so far taken away after baptism, that it ceases to be a sin properly: and is nothing else but a want, defect, and weakness, making the heart fit and ready to conceive sin: much like tinder, which though it be no fire of itself, yet is it very apt and fit to conceive fire. And they of the church of Rome deny it to be sin properly, that they might uphold some gross opinions of theirs, namely, that a man in this life may fulfill the law of God; and do good works void of sin: that he may stand righteous at the bar of God's judgment by them.
But we teach otherwise, that though original sin be taken away in the regenerate, and that in sundry respects: yet does it remain in them after baptism, not only as a want and weakness but as a sin, and that properly: as may by these reasons be proved.
Reason 1. (Romans 7:17) Paul says directly: It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me: that is, original sin. The Papists answer again, that it is so called improperly: because it comes of sin and also is an occasion of sin to be done. But by the circumstances of the text, it is sin properly: for in the words following, Saint Paul says, that this sin dwelling in him, made him to do the evil which he hated. And verse 24 he cries out, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? From which I reason thus.
That which once was sin properly, and still remaining in man makes him to sin, and entangles him in the punishment of sin, and makes him miserable: that is sin properly.
But original sin does all these. Therefore.
Reason 2. Infants baptized and regenerate, die the bodily death before they come to the years of discretion: therefore original sin in them is sin properly; or else they should not die, having no cause of death in them: for death is the wages of sin, as the Apostle says (Romans 6:23), and (Romans 5:12) death entered into the world by sin. As for actual sin they have none, if they die immediately after they are born before they come to any use either of reason, or affection.
Reason 3. That which lusts against the spirit, and by lusting tempts, and in tempting entices and draws the heart to sin, is by nature sin itself: but concupiscence in the regenerate lusts against the spirit (Galatians 5:17) and tempts as I have said (James 1:14): God tempts no man, but every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own concupiscence, and is enticed: then when lust conceives, it brings forth sin. And therefore it is sin properly: such as the fruit is, such is the tree. Augustine: Concupiscence against which the spirit lusts is sin, because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind: and it is the punishment of sin because it befalls man for the merits of his disobedience: and it is the cause of sin.
Reason 5. The judgment of the ancient Church. Augustine (Epistle 29): Charity in some is more, in some less, in some none: the highest degree of all which cannot be increased, is in none, as long as man lives upon earth. And as long as it may be increased, that which is less than it should be, is in fault: by which fault it is, that there is no just man upon earth that does good and sins not: by which fault none living shall be justified in the sight of God: for which fault, if we say we have no sin, there is no truth in us: for which also, though we profit never so much, it is necessary for us to say, forgive us our debts, though all our words, deeds, and thoughts be already forgiven in baptism. Indeed Augustine in sundry places seems to deny concupiscence to be sin after baptism: but his meaning is, that concupiscence in the regenerate is not the sin of the person in whom it is. For thus he expounds himself, This is not to have sin, not to be guilty of sin. And, The law of sin in baptism is remitted and not ended. And, Let not sin reign: he says not, let not sin be, but let it not reign. For as long as you live, of necessity sin will be in your members: at the least, see that it reign not in you.
Objections of Papists.
The arguments which the Church of Rome alleges to the contrary, are these. Objection 1. In baptism men receive perfect and absolute pardon of sin; and sin being pardoned is taken quite away: and therefore original sin after baptism ceases to be sin. Answer: Sin is abolished two ways: first in regard of imputation to the person: secondly in regard of existing and being. For this cause, God grants to man two blessings in baptism: Remission of sin, and Mortification of the same. Remission or pardon abolishes sin wholly in respect of any imputation thereof to man, but not simply in regard of the being thereof. Mortification therefore goes further, and abolishes in all the powers of body and soul, the very concupiscence or corruption itself, in respect of the being thereof. And because mortification is not accomplished till death, therefore original corruption remains till death, though not imputed.
Objection 2. Every sin is voluntary; but original sin in no man after baptism is voluntary: and therefore no sin. Answer: The proposition is a political rule pertaining to the courts of men, and must be understood of such actions as are done of one man to another: and it does not belong to the court of conscience, which God holds and keeps in men's hearts, in which every want of conformity to the law is made a sin. Secondly I answer, that original sin was voluntary in our first parent Adam: for he sinned, and brought this misery upon us willingly: though in us it be otherwise upon just cause. Actual sin was first in him, and then original corruption: but in us original corruption is first, and then actual sin.
Objection 3. Where the form of anything is taken away, there the thing itself ceases also: but after baptism in the regenerate, the form of original sin, that is, the guilt is quite removed: and therefore sin ceases to be sin. Answer: The guilt, or obligation to punishment, is not the form of original corruption, but (as we say in schools) an accident or necessary companion thereof. The true form of original sin, is a defect and deprivation of that which the law requires at our hands in our mind, will, affections, and in all the powers both of soul and body. But they urge this reason further, saying; where the guilt and punishment is taken away, there is no fault remaining: but after baptism the guilt and punishment is removed: and therefore, though original corruption remain, it is not as a fault to make us guilty before God, but only as a weakness. Answer: Guilt is removed, and not removed. It is removed from the person regenerate, which stands not guilty for any sin original or actual: but guilt is not removed from the sin itself; or, as some answer, there be two kinds of guilt, actual, and potential. The actual guilt is, whereby sin makes man stand guilty before God: and that is removed in the regenerate. But the potential guilt, which is an aptness in sin, to make a man stand guilty if he sin, that is not removed: and therefore still sin remains sin. To this or like effect says Augustine, We say that the guilt of concupiscence, not whereby it is guilty (for that is not a person) but that whereby it made man guilty from the beginning, is pardoned, and that the thing itself is evil so as the regenerate desire to be healed of this plague.
Objection 4. Lastly, for our disgrace they allege that we in our doctrine teach, that original sin after baptism is only clipped or pared, like the hair of a man's head, whose roots still remain in the flesh, growing and increasing after they are cut, as before. Answer: Our doctrine is abused: for in the paring of anything, as in cutting of the hair or in lopping a tree, the root remains untouched, and thereupon multiplies as before. But in the mortification of original sin after baptism, we hold no such paring: but teach, that in the very first instant of the conversion of a sinner, sin receives its deadly wound in the root, never afterward to be recovered.
The next point to address is original sin after baptism — specifically, how much of it remains after baptism. This deserves careful consideration, because many points of Catholic teaching depend on it.
1. Our consent.
Conclusion 1. Both they and we say that natural corruption is abolished after baptism — but let us examine how far it is abolished. Original sin has three elements: first, the punishment, which is both physical and spiritual death; second, guilt, which is the creature's liability to punishment; third, the offense against God, under which I include both our guilt in Adam's first sin and the corruption of the heart — that is, a natural inclination and tendency toward everything evil and contrary to God's law. Regarding the first element, we say that after baptism the punishment of original sin is removed from the regenerate. As Paul says in Romans 8:1: 'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.' Regarding the second element — guilt — we further agree that it too is removed in those who are born again, since if there is no condemnation, nothing remains to bind them to punishment. However, this important qualification must be kept in mind: the guilt is removed from the regenerate person, not from the sin that still exists within that person — but more on this later. Third, the guilt of Adam's first offense is pardoned. Regarding the corruption of the heart, I affirm two things: first, the very power and strength by which it reigns in a person is taken away in the regenerate; second, this corruption is abolished — as is the fault of every actual past sin — in the sense that it is the fault and sin of the person in whom it resides. It remains until death, and it is still sin in itself for as long as it remains, but it is not counted against the person — and in that respect it is treated as though it were not there, having been forgiven.
2. The dissent or difference.
This is the extent of our agreement with the Church of Rome. The difference between us lies not in whether original sin is abolished, but in the manner and measure of that abolishment.
Papists teach that original sin is so thoroughly removed after baptism that it ceases to be sin in the proper sense — that it becomes nothing more than a deficiency, weakness, and readiness to conceive sin: much like tinder, which is not itself fire, but is very apt to catch fire. The Church of Rome denies that it is sin in the proper sense in order to uphold certain of their key positions — namely, that a person in this life can fully obey God's law, perform good works entirely free from sin, and stand righteous before God's judgment seat on the basis of those works.
We teach differently. Although original sin is taken away in the regenerate, and in several respects, it nevertheless remains in them after baptism — not merely as a deficiency and weakness, but as sin in the proper sense. This can be shown by the following arguments.
Reason 1. In Romans 7:17, Paul says plainly: 'It is no longer I who do it, but sin which dwells in me' — that is, original sin. The papists respond that it is called sin only in an improper sense, because it comes from sin and provides occasion for sin. But the context of the passage shows that it is sin in the proper sense: in the verses that follow, Paul says that this sin dwelling in him caused him to do the evil he hated. And in verse 24 he cries out: 'Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?' From this I reason as follows.
Whatever was once properly sin, and while still remaining in a person causes him to sin, entangles him in the punishment of sin, and makes him miserable — that is properly sin.
But original sin does all of these things. Therefore it is properly sin.
Reason 2. Baptized and regenerate infants die bodily before they reach the age of reason — therefore original sin in them is sin in the proper sense, or else they would not die, having nothing in them to cause death. For death is the wages of sin, as Paul says in Romans 6:23, and in Romans 5:12 he says that death entered the world through sin. As for actual sins, infants who die immediately after birth before ever exercising reason or will have committed none.
Reason 3. Whatever lusts against the Spirit, and by lusting tempts, and in tempting draws the heart toward sin, is by its very nature sin. But in the regenerate, sinful desire lusts against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17) and tempts, as James 1:14 says: 'Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust; then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin.' Therefore sinful desire is properly sin — as the fruit is, so is the tree. Augustine wrote: 'The sinful desire against which the Spirit fights is sin, because in it there is disobedience against the rule of the mind; it is the punishment of sin, because it befalls man as a consequence of his disobedience; and it is the cause of sin.'
Reason 5. The testimony of the ancient Church. Augustine wrote in Epistle 29: 'In some people love is greater, in some less, in some absent altogether. The highest degree, which cannot be increased further, is found in no one as long as he lives on earth.' As long as love can still be increased, whatever falls short of what it should be is a fault. And because of this fault, no just person on earth does good and does not also sin; because of this fault, no living person will be justified before God; because of this fault, if we say we have no sin, there is no truth in us; because of this fault, no matter how much we grow, we must still pray 'forgive us our debts' — even though all our words, deeds, and thoughts have already been forgiven in baptism. Augustine does in some places seem to deny that sinful desire is sin after baptism — but his meaning is that sinful desire in the regenerate is not counted as the sin of the person in whom it exists. He explains himself this way: 'This is what it means to not have sin — to not be guilty of sin.' He also says: 'The law of sin in baptism is remitted, not ended.' And again: 'Do not let sin reign' — he does not say 'do not let sin exist,' but 'do not let it reign.' For as long as you live, sin will of necessity be present in your members — at least make sure it does not reign over you.
Objections of Papists.
The Church of Rome offers the following arguments against our position. Objection 1: In baptism people receive complete and absolute pardon of sin. Since the pardoned sin is entirely removed, original sin after baptism ceases to be sin. Answer: Sin is abolished in two distinct ways. The first is with respect to its being counted against the person; the second is with respect to its very existence. For this reason, God grants two blessings to a person in baptism: the forgiveness of sin and the mortification of sin. Forgiveness abolishes sin entirely with respect to its being charged against the person, but not with respect to its existence. Mortification goes further and abolishes the sinful desire and corruption itself — in all the faculties of body and soul — with respect to its very existence. Because mortification is not completed until death, original corruption remains until death, even though it is no longer counted against the person.
Objection 2: Every sin is voluntary; but original sin in no person after baptism is voluntary; therefore it is not sin. Answer: That principle is a rule of civil law governing human courts, and it applies only to actions done by one person against another. It does not apply to the court of conscience, which God holds in human hearts, where every failure to conform to His law is counted as sin. Second, original sin was voluntary in our first parent Adam — for he sinned and brought this misery upon us willingly, even though in us it comes about differently, for just reasons. In Adam, actual sin came first and original corruption followed; but in us, original corruption is first and actual sin follows from it.
Objection 3: When the form of something is removed, the thing itself ceases to exist. After baptism, in the regenerate, the form of original sin — that is, the guilt — is completely removed; therefore sin ceases to be sin. Answer: Guilt, or the liability to punishment, is not the form of original corruption — it is, as we say in the schools, an accident or necessary companion of it. The true form of original sin is the deficiency and deprivation of what the law requires of us — in our mind, will, and affections, and in all the faculties of soul and body. They press the argument further, saying: where guilt and punishment are removed, no fault remains; after baptism guilt and punishment are removed; therefore, even if original corruption remains, it is not a fault that makes us guilty before God — it is only a weakness. Answer: Guilt is both removed and not removed. It is removed from the regenerate person, who does not stand guilty for either original or actual sin. But guilt is not removed from the sin itself. Put another way: there are two kinds of guilt — actual and potential. Actual guilt is what makes a person stand condemned before God, and this is removed in the regenerate. Potential guilt is the capacity of sin to make a person stand condemned if he sins — and this is not removed. Therefore sin remains sin. Augustine speaks to this effect: 'We say that the guilt of sinful desire — not the guilt belonging to it as a thing (for a thing cannot be guilty) but the guilt by which it made man guilty from the beginning — is pardoned, and that the thing itself is evil, so much so that the regenerate desire to be healed of this plague.'
Objection 4: Finally, they accuse us of teaching that original sin after baptism is merely trimmed or cut back — like the hair of a man's head, whose roots remain in the skin and keep growing after being cut. Answer: Our doctrine is being misrepresented. When something is merely trimmed — as when hair is cut or a tree is pruned — the root remains untouched and continues to grow as before. But that is not what we teach about the mortification of original sin after baptism. We hold that in the very first moment of a sinner's conversion, sin receives its deathblow at the root — from which it never recovers.
