Article 1. On the Sin of the First Parents

413. Those most splendid gifts with which God furnished the first parents in their first condition were conferred not on them alone, but in them on the whole of human nature. We do not establish a special proposition concerning this matter, both because, by recalling the testimonies of Sacred Scripture and of the Fathers by which we showed that those gifts were conferred on Adam, it is easily demonstrated that they were conferred also on us in him, and because from the things to be said concerning the loss of those same gifts, this truth will become more than sufficiently known.

414. Therefore we inquire into the cause by which it came about that, although from the largess of the Creator we had been raised to a supernatural state and a state of a certain happiness, nevertheless all of us are subjected to innumerable miseries. The Apostle manifested this cause when he said: "Through one man sin entered into this world, and through sin death," etc. Hence St. Augustine (Unfinished Work against Julian, book 6, c. 21) says: "For just as the penalties of human miseries, which the children of Adam commonly bear from the day of their exit from their mother's womb, belong to all because these things came from their prevarication, so the prevarication of those two must be understood as so great a sin that it could change for the worse the nature of all those born from man and woman, and bind the document of debt by a common guilt, as though of an hereditary debt."

415. Therefore, once the fact has been established that the first parents gravely sinned, we must treat of the transfusion of that sin into the whole human race, or of original sin. Its existence, nature, propagation, and effects, as time permits, we shall investigate.

416. In this article we shall establish first the existence of the sin of the first parents; then we shall briefly explain its nature.

417. The Council of Trent, session 5, canon 1, teaches: "If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the sanctity and justice in which he had been constituted, and incurred through the offense of this prevarication the wrath and indignation of God, and therefore death, which God had previously threatened him with, and with death captivity under the power of him who thereafter had the empire of death, that is, the devil, and that the whole Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed for the worse according to body and soul, let him be anathema."

418. In order that this Catholic truth may be established in such a way that the evasions of the adversaries may be anticipated, we note a few things beforehand. And first, as Bellarmine reports (On the Loss of Grace and the State of Sin, book 3, c. 1), there have not been lacking those who asserted that the first parents neither sinned nor could have sinned, led by this reason: that the words in Genesis 1, that they should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were not a law, they said, but an admonition after the manner of physicians when they prohibit something harmful. They confirmed this error from 1 Timothy 1, where it is said that law is not laid down for the just but for the sinner. Therefore, in order that the sin of the first parents may be established, the existence must be shown of a precept which they sinned by transgressing.

419. But in order that the nature of that precept may be understood, one must say, as St. Thomas teaches in Opusc. 2, c. 118, that "the eating of that tree was not prohibited because it was evil according to itself, but so that man at least in this small thing might observe something for this reason alone, that it had been commanded by God." In these words the holy Doctor also indicates the reason of that precept, which the holy Fathers had handed down. Thus St. John Chrysostom, Homily 14 on Genesis, says: "God was doing these things as some liberal lord entrusting a great house to someone, so that his dominion may remain safe, prescribes that only a small sum of money be given by him." And St. Augustine (On Genesis to the Letter, book 8, c. 13): "That we may not seek the cause of this command for too long, if this itself is a great utility for man, that he serves God, God by commanding makes useful whatever he has willed to command."

420. But although, as Suarez rightly notes (On the Work of the Six Days, book 3, c. 21, n. 9), that precept was not simply necessary "so that man through his subjection might recognize God's dominion, or so that he might render obedience to him, for without doubt both that cognition could be had in many other ways, and obedience could be exercised in other precepts; nevertheless it was most fitting to restrict that precept to a peculiar mode of subjection and obedience, because in other precepts some ratio of evil or inconvenience is found besides God's prohibition. And therefore, as Augustine says in the cited chapter, book 3, such a prohibition was made, so that it would be evil from the transgression of God's will alone, so that from this the malice of disobedience might be shown, because from the ratio of obedience alone abstaining was good, and eating was evil, which otherwise, the prohibition set aside, would not be evil." From the very end of this precept, as we shall see, its gravity can be deduced.

421. If someone should ask why that tree is called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Suarez answers (l. c., n. 6): "Various reasons are given for that name. Gregory of Nyssa, in the book On the Making of Man, c. 20, gives this one: that that fruit, offered under the appearance of good, brought in the experience of evil. And another reason also looks to this: that it was called the knowledge of good and evil because the serpent promised this knowledge through eating it, so that the name is imposed, as it were, by antiphrasis, just as God said, 'Behold Adam has become as one of us, knowing good and evil.' But the more frequently received reason is that that name was imposed from the event, because by eating of that tree he knew by experience the good which he lost and the evil into which he fell, as Chrysostom says, Homily 16 on Genesis, near the end. Or through it he knew sin, as Theodoret says, question 62 on Genesis. Or because the evil of disobedience was shown, and how great the good of obedience would have been, as St. Augustine says in book 14 City of God, c. 17, and book 8 On Genesis to the Letter, cc. 6 and 13, and with him St. Thomas, I, q. 102, a. 1, ad 4."

422. With these things therefore explained, we say:

PROPOSITION XXXVI. 1. A true precept was imposed on the first parents, which 2. they transgressed; 3. they sinned gravely; and 4. they lost original justice.

Proof of the first part, I. From Scripture. For in Genesis 2:16-17 it is read: "And he commanded him, saying: Eat of every tree of paradise. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, do not eat; for on whatever day you eat from it, you shall die the death." And chapter 3:1ff.: "He, the serpent, said to the woman: Why has God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? To whom the woman answered: Of the fruit of the trees which are in paradise, we eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God has commanded us that we should not eat, and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die."

Hence: a) Moses, a historical writer, uses repeatedly the word "commanded"; the same word is employed by the tempted woman, and by the serpent by whom she is tempted. Nothing prevents that word from being taken in its proper sense. Therefore it is a question of a true precept and not of a simple admonition.

b) When a superior prohibits something with a sanction added, he truly imposes a law or precept; but God, prohibiting them from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, added: "on whatever day you eat from it, you shall die the death"; therefore.

c) The eating of that fruit in other places of Scripture to be cited below is often called transgression and sin; death, which God had threatened, is called the punishment of that sin. Therefore a true precept was imposed, that they should not eat of that fruit.

Proof II. From the Fathers. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 5, says: "Adam was perfect; but he chose what was forbidden." St. Cyprian (On the Incarnation of the Word): "At once at the origin of the world and of the human race, Adam was forgetful of the precept and a transgressor of the law given." St. Irenaeus, book 5 Against Heresies, c. 19, speaks of the seduction of Eve, "who through the words of the evil angel was incited to violating the divine precept and abandoning God." St. Chrysostom, Homily 16 on Genesis: "That tasting was an argument of disobedience and a prevarication of the command handed down by God," etc.

Proof III. From the emptiness of the opposing reason. "Indeed," Bellarmine says in the cited place, "from what they themselves teach, that the first men did not sin because they did not have a law, since they were just, it follows that no men sin; indeed that it cannot happen that any men sin. For if sin presupposes law, since it is a prevarication of law, and law presupposes sin, since law is not laid down for the just but for the sinner, then sin always presupposes sin; therefore there was no first sin. And if there was no first sin, whence did the rest arise? Wherefore it is necessary either that there was law before sin, and that the opinion of the adversaries is false, or certainly that there are not, nor have there ever been, any sins in the world, which is the error of the Libertines, whose shamelessness, as we said in the previous book, should be restrained not by arguments, but only by tortures and punishments."

The cited author discusses many things splendidly, and at the end adds St. Augustine's interpretation of the objected testimony of the Apostle from 1 Timothy: "St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 10, wants this same passage of the Apostle from chapter 1 of the first letter to Timothy, 'Law is not laid down for the just, but for the unjust,' to be similar to those places of the same Apostle, 'You are not under law, but under grace,' Romans 6, and, 'If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law,' Galatians 5. These places do not mean that the just are not bound by laws, or that they do not sin if they do not keep the law, but that they do not have the law above them, as though hanging over their necks and threatening and terrifying with a whip, as the unjust have, who work good from fear of punishment. For the just work good from love of justice and with a willing spirit, and would work even if there were no law or if it threatened no punishment. Therefore they are rather in the law than under the law, as the Apostle says of himself in 1 Corinthians 9, where he says that he is not under law, and nevertheless that he is not without law, but is in the law of Christ."

Proof of the second part. That they at least materially transgressed the precept not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is openly handed down in Scripture. For in Genesis 3:6 it is read: "Therefore the woman saw that the tree was good for eating, and beautiful to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of its fruit and ate, and gave to her husband, who ate." But that this transgression was formal is proved thus: for a transgression of law to be formal sin, cognition of the law and freedom are required and suffice. But cognition of the precept was not lacking to the first parents; for the woman answered the serpent by whom she was tempted: "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God has commanded us that we should not eat and should not touch it, lest perhaps we die." Nor was freedom lacking, which certainly belongs to human nature, and which the adversaries themselves, the Innovators, do not deny to innocent man. Therefore.

Proof of the third part. I. Ecclesiasticus 10:14 says: "The beginning of man's pride is to apostatize from God, because his heart withdrew from him who made him; because the beginning of every sin is pride." And Tobit 4:14: "Never permit pride to rule in your sense or in your word; for in it every perdition took its beginning." Hence a sin which includes apostasy, withdrawal from God, and which is the beginning of every perdition, is certainly grave. But such was the sin of the first parents. Therefore.

Proof II. The sanction added to the precept was "on whatever day you eat from it, you shall die the death." But to death must be added all evils, as is clear from the things which we said in the preceding disputation. Hence, as Suarez rightly notes (l. c., n. 10), the gravity of the precept is openly proved from the threat of death added to the precept. "For if it is understood of the death of the soul, as Philo wished, and as Gregory and Eucherius thought, the aforesaid mortal gravity is formally contained in the very threat. But if it is understood of bodily death, as according to the letter it must be understood according to Paul and the Council of Trent, from the threat of so grave a punishment it is gathered that that precept obliged under grave fault; and therefore the Fathers commonly interpreted that threat of both deaths, of body and of soul."

Proof III. From the very end of the precept and the authority of the Fathers. For a) St. Augustine (City of God, book 14, c. 12) says: "No one ought therefore to think that that deed was light or small because it was done in a food, not indeed evil or harmful, but because it was forbidden; for obedience was commended in the precept, which virtue in a rational creature is in a certain way the mother and guardian of all virtues."

b) The same Augustine (Unfinished Work against Julian, book 1, c. 105) calls Adam's sin an ineffably grave sin. And in book 3, c. 65: "Adam sinned with so great an impiety as we cannot measure and estimate, but as God judged it." Often the holy Doctor enumerates various circumstances which aggravate that sin. For he notes, 1. in City of God, book 14, c. 12, that Adam had only one positive precept; 2. that the things which hinder us from observing the law were lacking, for there was no ignorance in him, no weakness or concupiscence, etc.; hence in c. 633 he concludes: "For the more man enjoyed God, the greater the impiety with which he abandoned God, and he was made worthy of eternal evil, since he destroyed in himself that good which could have been eternal"; 3. that there were many things which impelled him to keeping the divine command. Hence in City of God, book 14, c. 15, he writes: "God commanding was despised: he who had created, who had made him to his image, who had set him over the other animals, who had established him in paradise, who had provided an abundance of all things and of salvation, who had burdened him with precepts neither many, nor grave, nor difficult."

Proof of the fourth part. The gifts of original justice, as we have seen, are chiefly sanctifying grace and the destination to the intuitive vision consequent upon it; immunity from concupiscence, from death, and from the hardships of this life. But the first parents lost all these things through sin. Therefore.

The minor is proved with respect to sanctifying grace and the right to eternal beatitude. It is read in 2 Corinthians 6:14: "What participation has justice with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" And 1 John 3:9: "Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin." Romans 5:6: "Judgment indeed from one unto condemnation; but grace from many offenses unto justification." And 5:18: "As through the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation, so through the justice of one unto all men unto justification of life." By these words it is openly taught that sin cannot be composed with grace and charity; that it carries spiritual death with itself; that it induces condemnation, and consequently exclusion from eternal life and beatitude.

The minor is proved with respect to immunity from concupiscence and from death from the things which we said above concerning these gifts, especially nn. 290 and 302.

The minor is proved with respect to immunity from hardships. a) In Genesis 3:16-19 it is said: "To the woman also he said: I will multiply your hardships and your conceptions; in pain you shall bring forth children, and you shall be under the power of your husband, and he shall rule over you. But to Adam he said: Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree from which I had commanded you not to eat, cursed is the earth in your work; in labors you shall eat from it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the earth. In the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until you return to the earth from which you were taken, because you are dust, and into dust you shall return." And 3:23ff.: "And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, that he might work the earth from which he was taken. And he cast out Adam, and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubim and a flaming and turning sword, to guard the way of the tree of life."

b) St. Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus, book 2, n. 25): "To the first man, the transgression of the command brought this, that he was cast out of paradise; not because anything evil was in the tree of knowledge, but from sin, as from a fountain, there flowed into man labors, pains, distresses, and finally death itself." St. Ambrose (On Paradise, c. 14, n. 70): "Adam, where are you? That is, from what goods, from what beatitude, from what grace, into what misery have you withdrawn?"

423. NOTE. It is a common and certain opinion that Adam and Eve obtained pardon for their sin and attained eternal salvation. For in Wisdom 10:1 it is read: "This, namely wisdom, guarded him who was first formed by God, father of the world, when he alone had been created, and led him out of his offense." St. Augustine, Epistle 99 to Evodius, says: "Almost the whole Church agrees that Christ, when he descended to the lower regions, freed Adam from there." St. Gregory, Epistle 31, otherwise 195: "Adam afterward returned to life through penitence." St. Augustine (On the Merits and Remission of Sins, book 2, c. 34) says concerning the first human beings: "After sin, by living justly, they are deservedly believed to have been freed by the blood of the Lord from eternal punishment." St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31 on Matthew 19: "The serpent deceived both, Adam and Eve; Christ by his passion gave salvation to both." See Suarez, On the Work of the Six Days, book 4, c. 9.

424. Here we briefly touch upon a few things which contribute to explaining the nature of the sin of the first parents, and the manner in which they fell into it. And first of all, once the principle of St. Thomas, II-II, q. 163, a. 1, has been supposed, namely, "that many movements can concur toward one sin," all agree that other sins were joined with the first sin of Adam and Eve.

425. Besides the sin of pride, which, as we shall say, was common to both, Eve committed the sin of unbelief. "For," says Suarez (On the Work of the Six Days, book 4, c. 2, n. 11), "first of all, concerning Eve the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 2, 'The woman, having been seduced, was in prevarication,' although concerning Adam he says that he was not seduced. But that seduction of Eve seems to have been in things pertaining to faith; namely in this, that she believed the serpent saying, 'You shall by no means die,' more than God saying, 'You shall die the death'; therefore through this deception she fell into unbelief. Likewise she believed the promise of the serpent, 'you shall be as gods,' which contained an error in faith. Finally, she believed that God had prohibited the eating of the tree as if from envy, lest they should become as gods, knowing good and evil, which also contains an intolerable error." See also n. 23. - She sinned (n. 26) "also through an internal desire begun, but consummated by deed, by eating of the forbidden tree. And this is signified by those words, 'The woman saw that the tree was good for eating, and beautiful to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of its fruit and ate.'" - "But after these sins there followed the most grave sin of scandal, contained in those words, 'she gave to her husband'." - "To these, finally, can be added the excuse of the sin which she used when she was rebuked by God. But perhaps in that excuse there was not mortal malice, as we shall note below when treating of the sins of Adam."

426. But with regard to Adam, "His second sin," says Suarez (l. c., c. 4, n. 23), "was inordinate love toward his wife. This is taken from Augustine in the cited book 14 of City of God, c. 11, and book 11 of On Genesis to the Letter, c. 42, where he says that Adam ate of the tree in order to please his wife; therefore excessive benevolence toward his wife preceded before he ate of the tree." - "The third sin of Adam (n. 25) can be reckoned as this: that he ate of the forbidden tree. And this, as it were by antonomasia, is called the fall of Adam, because through it the whole human race fell; and thus the Apostle speaks specially of it in Romans 5, when he says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed into all men, in whom all sinned.' And similarly below, under the name of disobedience, he understands that sin, when he says, 'As through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of one many shall be constituted just.'" Others also enumerate other sins both of Adam and of Eve, concerning which, however, there is not the same certainty.

427. With these things posited, the first question is: what was the first sin of the first parents? The most common response is that the first sin of the first parents was pride. This is clear a) from Scripture. Recall the places from Ecclesiasticus 10 and Tobias 4 recited above. Hence God chiefly condemned this sin, saying, Genesis 3:22: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us, knowing good and evil." And St. Augustine (On Genesis to the Letter, c. 39) remarks on this place: "For these are words of God, not so much insulting this man (Adam), as deterring the others lest they be proud in this way." - b) From the Fathers. St. Ambrose (Sermon 14 on Psalm 118): "Pride first cast man down." - St. Augustine (On Genesis to the Letter, book 11, c. 8): "Nor should one think that that tempter would have cast man down unless there had preceded in man's soul a certain elation to be repressed." - And (City of God, book 14, c. 13): "They began to be evil in secret, so that they might fall into open disobedience; for the evil work would not have been reached unless an evil will had preceded. But what could the beginning of an evil will have been except pride? For pride is the beginning of every sin." - St. Prosper, St. Gregory, St. Leo, etc., have the same. See Suarez (l. c., c. 2, n. 14ff.; and c. 3 from n. 9).

428. The second question is: in what did the elation, or pride, of the first parents consist? St. Thomas answers this question admirably, II-II, q. 163, a. 2. For, having supposed that they sinned by desiring likeness with God, he first observes "that likeness is twofold. One is of complete equality; and the first parents did not desire this likeness to God, because such likeness to God does not fall within apprehension, especially that of a wise person. But another is a likeness of imitation, such as is possible for a creature in relation to God, namely insofar as it participates something of his likeness according to its own mode. For Dionysius says in chapter 9 of The Divine Names (middle of the article, lecture 3): 'The same things are like God and unlike: the former according to contingent imitation; the latter insofar as effects have less than the cause.' But every good existing in a creature is a certain participated likeness of the first good. And therefore, from this very fact that man desired some spiritual good above his measure, as was said in the preceding article, it follows that he desired the divine likeness inordinately."

429. Then he explains in what the likeness of imitation consisted which the first parents inordinately desired, saying: "The first man sinned principally by desiring likeness to God with respect to the knowledge of good and evil, as the serpent suggested to him; namely, so that by the power of his own nature he would determine for himself what was good and what was evil for acting; or even so that by himself he would know beforehand what good or evil would befall him. And secondarily he sinned by desiring likeness to God with respect to his own power of operating; namely, so that by the power of his own nature he would operate toward attaining beatitude. Hence Augustine says, book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, c. 30, around the middle, that 'there was present in the woman's mind a love of her own power.'" See Suarez (l. c., c. 2, n. 19; and c. 3, n. 12).

430. From these things it plainly follows that the first sin of man was not disobedience; and St. Thomas expressly teaches this in the cited q. 163, a. 1, ad 1, saying: "This, that man did not obey the divine precept, was not willed by him for its own sake, because this could not happen unless a disordering of the will had been presupposed. Therefore it remains that he willed it for the sake of something else. But the first thing which he inordinately willed was his own excellence; and therefore disobedience in him was caused from pride."

431. But how can this be reconciled with the Apostle saying in Romans 5:19: "Through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners"? For it seems that that sin was first which corrupted the whole posterity. One can answer first with the same St. Thomas, II Sent., dist. 22, q. 1, a. 1, ad 3: "Disobedience is taken in two ways. For sometimes it is a special sin, namely when someone sins specially from contempt of a precept. But sometimes it is taken as it is a general condition following upon every mortal sin. For since the precept of the law orders the acts of all the virtues, it follows that any vice whatever has annexed to it a transgression of the precept, and disobedience. And in this way it is said: through the disobedience of one, etc."

432. Suarez, however (l. c., c. 4, n. 25), adds: "Although it is probable that that disobedience was not formal, that is, not from a direct intention of not obeying God, nor from proper contempt of his precept, nevertheless I judge that it was a special malice distinct from the others, because from the principal intention of God commanding, that prohibition had been established for professing subjection, and as if by way of a tribute imposed in recognition of the divine dominion."

Hence (On Vices and Sins, disp. 9, sect. 3, n. 7), he says: "When the Saints seem to say that the first sin of Adam was the cause of the perdition of human nature, they are speaking of that perfect and complete sin which both appeared exteriorly and is expressly narrated in Scripture. This is what St. Thomas teaches, I-II, q. 81, a. 2." But these things will become clearer from what is to be said below.

433. Another thing which is usually asked here is this: since sin does not occur without some depraved or false judgment of the mind, or at least without some perversity of mind, how could the first parents, perfect in knowledge and immune from error, have been able to sin?

Resp. 1. It is certain that no error preceded the first sin of the first parents. Hence when St. Thomas, I, q. 94, a. 4, had objected to himself that text of 1 Timothy 2:14, "the woman, having been seduced, was in prevarication," he answers: "Therefore to the first it must be said that that seduction of the woman, although it preceded the sin of deed, nevertheless followed the sin of internal elation. For St. Augustine says, book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, c. 30, around the middle, that 'the woman would not have believed the words of the serpent unless there had already been in her mind a love of her own power and a certain proud presumption concerning herself.'"

Resp. 2. To some, perversity of mind does not seem necessary for sinning, since the will fails contrary to the judgment of the mind. But those who acknowledge some perversity of mind in every sin explain the matter thus with respect to the sin of the first parents. "One must distinguish a multiple defect of created intellect: namely, ignorance of those things which one is not bound to know; then the lack of due cognition, which is called vincible ignorance; further, error, by which false things are approved as true, which is false judgment; and finally, defect of consideration. To remove the first defect of ignorance from Adam would be the same as to make his mind uncreated; for a created mind neither can nor ought to know all things. Hence it is an ascertained thing that this ignorance cannot be established as the proximate cause of the sin which the first parents committed. Their innocent life does not allow the second defect, nor the third: for there every good fitting the integrity of nature ought to have been present, and every contrary evil absent. There remains defect of consideration. When likeness with God had been proposed by the serpent through those words, 'You shall be as gods,' the thought of their own excellence was stirred up in their mind, with them willing it, or not resisting. They applied that thought to action, a judgment having been made concerning their own excellence as something to be loved; and they loved it. This was a depraved love, infected with the stain of pride. For in that circumstance of the devil proposing likeness with God, they were bound actually to love God as the highest good, and to love themselves and their own excellence with an actual relation to God. But the judgment by which the depraved love of their own excellence was governed was not false, but inconsiderate; and the guilt of that lack of consideration did not depend on some prior will, likewise depraved. It proceeded from the very depraved love of their own excellence following upon it and at the same time coexisting with it, inasmuch as by that love, as though reflecting, the very lack of consideration in the judgment was approved." See De Rubeis (On Original Sin, c. 47, n. 3).

434. Finally, if someone should ask how it could happen that the first parents, so perfect in intellect, so upright in will, immune from the rebellion of the lower appetite, sinned, one must answer that all these gifts did not impede the proper defectibility of created freedom, through which they both were able to sin and did sin. For if many of the Angels, endowed with greater powers, fell, why is that judged impossible concerning human beings?

On printed page 486 / PDF page 497, the embedded text layer contained an artifact between Proposita and per serpentem. The corrected Latin used here is: Superest defectus considerationis. Proposita per serpentem similitudine cum Deo per ea verba... This is grammatically required by the ablative absolute and is reflected in the English translation: "When likeness with God had been proposed by the serpent..."