Article 2. On the Propagation of the First Parents' Sin

435. The sin committed by the first parents in paradise did not remain in Adam alone, but from him, as from a seed, flowed forth to his posterity. We shall prove this truth from the sources of revelation; we shall vindicate it from the chief difficulties; and we shall add certain small questions for understanding it more deeply.

436. Here, as is clear, the matter concerns the existence of original sin. We shall investigate its nature afterward; therefore here, for understanding the matter, it is enough to indicate that by the name of original sin we understand that which is derived from the sin of the first parent into all who draw their origin from him through carnal generation. "We call it original sin," says St. Augustine (Unfinished Work against Julian, book 5, c. 9), "more significantly than natural sin for this reason: so that it may be understood as belonging not to the divine work, but to human origin, especially for signifying that which entered into the world through one man."

437. The present question is of the greatest importance. For, as the same holy Doctor remarks (On Original Sin, c. 28): "In the case of the two men, through one of whom we were sold under sin, through the other of whom we are redeemed from sins; through one of whom we were cast headlong into death, through the other of whom we are freed unto life; of whom the former lost us in himself by doing his own will, not the will of him by whom he was made, while the latter saved us in himself by not doing his own will, but the will of him by whom he was sent: in the case, therefore, of these two men, Christian faith properly consists."

438. Leaving aside now the more ancient definitions of the Church concerning this matter, we set forth the doctrine which the Council of Trent handed down, session 5, canons 2 and 3. "If anyone asserts that Adam's prevarication harmed himself alone and not his offspring, and that the sanctity and justice received from God which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not also for us; or that he, being stained by the sin of disobedience, transfused death and the punishments of the body only into the whole human race, but not also sin, which is the death of the soul: let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle saying: Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed into all men, in whom all sinned." - "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which is one by origin and, transfused by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, is taken away either by the powers of human nature or by any other remedy than through the merit of the one mediator our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema."

439. Those indirectly denied, as it were, the existence of original sin who traced the origin of evil either back to an evil principle, as the Gnostics and Manichaeans did; or derived it from unexpiated actual sins committed by the soul before union with the body, as Origen and all the Preexistence-theorists did. - But directly, after Theodore of Mopsuestia and Rufinus, Pelagius, a monk from Britain, and his disciples attacked the dogma concerning original sin; among those disciples Coelestius and Julian stand out. - Pelagius taught that the sin of Adam harmed Adam alone; but that all who draw origin from Adam die happens naturally, for Adam, he said, would have died even if he had not sinned. He anathematized this error at the Palestinian Synod, and confessed that Adam's sin had harmed also his posterity; but afterward he answered his disciples that the sin of the first man harmed his posterity not by propagation, but by imitation, insofar as the children of Adam do not contract that sin by origin, but imitate it by their own acts. - The Pelagians, being convinced, as it seems, by the arguments of Catholics that Adam would not have died if he had not sinned, began to teach that the death of the body is drawn through generation from Adam, but not sin, which is the death of the soul.

440. But in later times the Albigensians, Anabaptists, Socinians, and Remonstrants renewed the error which contends that neither death nor sin is drawn from Adam. - Another error, which grants that death and other evils are drawn from Adam, but not sin, was renewed by Huldrych Zwingli, Jacques Lefevre, etc. These taught that from the sin of the first man there redounds into us only a certain disease; a propensity toward sin; sin metonymically, insofar as it is the effect and cause of sin; or an obligation to death. The Quakers and others agreed with them more or less. - All Rationalists and Pantheists left nothing untried in order to show that the dogma of original sin conflicts with right reason, and so to overturn it. But concerning the agreement of reason with this dogma we shall speak below.

441. Therefore, as is clear from the definitions of the Church that have been brought forward, and from the opposed errors, in order to defend the existence of original sin it must be shown that the sin of the first parent, and not only its effects, was propagated into the children of Adam; that a true and properly so-called sin, and not sin taken merely metonymically, was propagated into them; and that therefore Adam's sin did not harm them because they imitated it, but because they contracted it. See Bellarmine (On the Loss of Grace and the State of Sin, book 4, c. 2).

442. Therefore we say:

PROPOSITION XXXVII. Adam's sin was transfused into his descendants by propagation, not by imitation; or, a true original sin is given.

It is proved from the Old Testament.

I. Job 14:1ff. describes the misery of man; and in v. 4 he exclaims: "Who can make clean one conceived of unclean seed? Is it not you, who alone are?" Or, as the Seventy translate: "No one is clean from stain; not even an infant whose life upon the earth is one day"; these last words are also found in the old Vulgate, and Calmet testifies that the ancients read the same and used them for the propagation of original sin. - But the Hebrew has: "Who can be given clean from unclean? Not one."

Hence: There is given a certain stain and universal uncleanness inhering in each human being from origin; but that uncleanness is not bodily, but spiritual, or is sin; therefore.

The minor is proved. a) Under the name of uncleanness, sins are often understood in Sacred Scripture. Thus Isaiah 64:6: "We have all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman." Cf. Zechariah 4. - The Fathers also understood the words of Job concerning spiritual uncleanness.

b) Job is speaking of an uncleanness from which God alone can cleanse; but this is the uncleanness which affects the soul, for human beings too can cleanse from bodily stain.

c) Job says in v. 4: "And do you consider it worthy to open your eyes upon one of this sort, and to bring him with you into judgment?" Hence: he is speaking of a stain on account of which a human being is brought into God's judgment; but a human being is subjected to God's judgment on account of spiritual uncleanness, or on account of sin; therefore.

II. Psalm 50:7 reads: "Behold, in iniquities I was conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me." - It must be noted that "in the Hebrew text it is said more expressly in the singular number, as St. Jerome also translates from the Hebrew: 'In iniquity I was conceived, and in sin my mother bore me.' Also in the Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic versions, iniquity and sin are expressed in the singular number." Although it could also, as St. Thomas observes, I-II, q. 82, a. 4, ad 1, be stated in the plural number, "either because all actual sins preexist in it as in a certain principle, whence it is manifold in potency; or because in the sin of the first parent, which is transmitted by origin, there were many deformities, namely of pride, disobedience, gluttony, and other such things; or because many parts of the soul are infected by original sin."

Hence: David asserts that a human being is conceived in sin; but that is not, nor can it be, anything other than original sin; therefore.

The minor is proved. a) From the Fathers. St. Hilary (on Psalm 118), explaining those words of David, "My soul shall live and shall praise you," says: "He does not reckon himself as living in this life, since he had said: 'Behold, in iniquities,' etc.; he knows that he was born under the origin of sin and under the law of sin." St. Ambrose (on Psalm 50:7): "Before we are born, we are stained by contagion, and before the use of light we receive the injury of our very origin: in iniquity we are conceived." - And (On Penance, book 1, c. 13): "We are all born under sin, we whose very origin is in fault, as David says: 'Behold, in iniquities,' etc." - St. Gregory (Moralia, book 4, n. 3): "Each one is conceived with the fault of the first parent, as the Prophet says: 'Behold, in iniquities,' etc."

b) That sin in which human beings are conceived is not actual sin in the child, as is clear in itself, nor is it the sin of the parents. For, besides the fact that this interpretation is contrary, as we have seen, to the interpretation of the Fathers, it is also opposed to the context. For in that whole Psalm David accuses not another's sins, but his own, and he brings forward various reasons in order to implore pardon for himself. Moreover, it is agreed that David was born from lawful wedlock; hence no one, whether among Jews or among Christians, has ever been found who thought that because of those words the mother of David should be accused. Deservedly, therefore, St. Augustine (Exposition on Psalm 50, n. 10) says: "David took on the person of the human race, and attended to the bonds of all; he considered the offspring of death, he adverted to the origin of iniquity, and said: Behold, for in iniquities I was conceived. Was David born of adultery, from Jesse, a just man, and his wife? What is it that he says he was conceived in iniquity, except that iniquity is drawn from Adam?" See Bellarmine (On the Loss of Grace and the State of Sin, book 4, c. 4) - De Rubeis (On Original Sin, c. 18).

443. It is asked, I. which sin of Adam was derived into his descendants? Resp. It was that sin which he committed against the law prohibiting the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Suarez proves this thus (On Vices and Sins, disp. 9, sect. 3, n. 7): "It is clear from that penalty imposed on the sin, on whatever day you eat, you shall die the death. These words are understood by the saints as spoken to the whole of human nature, as is clear from those words, 'because you listened to the voice of your wife, cursed is the earth, etc.' Likewise this is the sense of Paul in Romans 5 when he says, 'if by the offense of one many died,' and more clearly below, 'for if by the offense of one death reigned, etc.' The saints understand that one sin to have been that disobedience; the Council of Trent also, in session 5, openly confirms this."

444. You will say: the sin which is transmitted from Adam seems to be that by which he lost grace and the other gifts of original justice; but that seems to have been the first sin. But the first sin of Adam was pride. Therefore.

Resp. "Although," says Sylvius (on I-II, q. 81, a. 1), "the transgression of the divine law through the actual eating of the forbidden tree followed upon pride, nevertheless it was contained in that pride. For when Adam heard from Eve that they would be like God, knowing good and evil, if they ate of the fruit of that tree, he was immediately lifted up into pride and at the same time had the will of eating of that fruit. When he fulfilled that will by an external deed, he consummated nothing other than the sin conceived in the mind; and thus the first sin, brought all the way to consummation, was the eating of that fruit, although when it was beginning it was pride, indeed preceding the actual eating, yet including the will of doing that eating."

445. It is asked, II. whether, if Adam had not eaten of the forbidden food, but had committed some other grave sin, this would have been transfused into his descendants?

Resp. Some affirm this from this reason: Adam, they say, received original justice in such a way that if he preserved it, it would be derived into his descendants; but if he lost it, he would lose it also for his descendants. But whatever grave sin Adam had committed, he would have lost original justice. Therefore.

446. This seems to be the opinion of St. Thomas, who in II Sent., dist. 33, at the end, explaining the text concerning the sin of gluttony, says: "It is accidental that it brought such harm upon human nature, namely because it was the first sin which vitiated human nature and interrupted the order of the soul to God in him from whom all human beings generated through intercourse drew human nature. But whatever other sin had been first in this way would also have had a similar effect."

447. Others deny it, however, and their principal reason is: in those things which depend on the divine will, one must stand by those things which God has revealed; but from revelation it is clear only that death and sin were to be induced into all because of the eating of the forbidden tree; for these evils are said to have been induced because of this in Genesis 3:11, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate of the tree, etc." Therefore. Thus Suarez in the cited place.

St. Thomas proposed this reason to himself, but solved it. For in II Sent., dist. 3, he says: "Although indeed others speak differently, saying: If Adam had sinned in another way, he would not have incurred the necessity of dying, because this penalty seems to have been ordained by God only for that fault, when he said: On whatever day you eat, etc." To this the holy Doctor responds: "But in this it is shown, even if he had committed other sins, that he would have sustained a similar penalty, from the lesser. For it is more grave to transgress a precept of natural law, by which that which is evil in itself is prohibited, than to transgress a precept of discipline, by which that is prohibited which is not evil except because it is prohibited."

448. It is asked, III. whether, if Adam had violated that law by an internal act alone, his sin would have harmed his descendants?

Resp. St. Thomas, in the cited book, dist. 33, teaching that human nature would have been infected through any other sin whatever of the first parent, adds: "whether it had been a sin of deed, or of will." - And Suarez says in the cited place: "Although nothing seems certain, for God could have established this in either way, it seems more likely that even an interior transgression would have been sufficient, because that law was imposed simply on the whole nature, and that interior transgression would have been a perfect transgression of it. Therefore it would have been an aversion and disobedience of the whole nature; and in fact now it is not transferred to us because of the exterior act, which adds no malice, but because of that which has the true ratio of aversion and fault." This seems to be the common opinion.

449. It is asked, IV. whether, if Eve alone had sinned, human beings would be born in original sin?

Resp. The negative opinion is true, Suarez answers (l. c., n. 8), from that saying of Paul, "Through one man sin entered into this world." "For rather," St. Thomas observes, I-II, q. 81, a. 5, "it should have been said that it entered through two, since both sinned, or rather through the woman, who sinned first, if a woman transmitted original sin to offspring." - The reason is that Adam alone was constituted head of the human race, and therefore his sin alone was reckoned as the sin of the whole nature.

450. It is asked, V. whether, if Adam had not sinned, but another had sinned, the children of this latter would be born infected with sin?

Resp. Scotus affirms this, and St. Thomas thought so in De malo, q. 5, a. 4, ad 8. But the opposite is the true opinion, which St. Thomas taught in I-II, q. 81, a. 2. "The reason is," says Suarez (l. c., n. 9), "because Adam alone was the head of his posterity, and with him alone was that covenant, as it were, contracted. This is clear, first, because it has been revealed to us only concerning him, and not concerning others. Secondly, because it was fitting in this way; otherwise the salvation of all the children of Adam would depend on the will of each and every parent, while any one of them by himself could cause death. Thirdly, because Adam lost justice both for himself and for his whole posterity; therefore if he had persevered, he would have acquired it for his posterity; otherwise the compact would not be equal. Fourthly, because now a just parent does not transfer his justice to his child; therefore similarly, if the state of innocence endured, it is clear that an unjust parent would not transfer his injustice to his child. Fifthly, because otherwise even now it could be said that the sins of Cain, or of other children of Adam, are transferred to their children." See also St. Anselm (On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin, c. 24).

451. It is asked, VI. whether all the sins of Adam, or only the eating of the forbidden food, is transmitted into his descendants?

Resp. There is only one original sin in each human being, which is clear from Romans 5:16: "Judgment indeed was from one unto condemnation; but grace from many offenses unto justification."

452. It is asked, VII. whether, if Adam had not sinned, and consequently the state of original justice remained, infants born would have been confirmed in grace?

Resp. Although St. Anselm (Cur Deus Homo?, book 1, c. 18) held the affirmative opinion, nevertheless the contrary negative opinion is more common and more probable, and St. Thomas hands it down in I, q. 100, a. 2. For the gift of persevering infallibly in received justice is most special, not owed to the state of original justice, depending on the free will of God alone. Therefore it ought not to be asserted without some positive foundation from revelation. But there is no foundation of this sort. Therefore. - Indeed, there seems to be a fairly firm foundation for the contrary. For children, when they were born, would not have had more perfection than Adam received in creation; for the perfection then conferred on him had been conferred on nature, and was to be propagated through him into his descendants. But Adam in creation did not receive confirmation in grace, as his fault shows. Therefore.

Whether those who had sinned would have been able to return into the friendship of God and recover the right to eternal life - if they could have, by what means - whether there would have been some redemption for them, etc., cannot be defined at all. But concerning these things see Suarez (On the Work of the Six Days, book 5, cc. 9-10).