Chapter II: An Explanation of Some Questions About the First Fall of the First People.
CHAPTER II: WHICH EXPLAINS SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE FIRST FALL OF THE FIRST PEOPLE
What was the first sin of the first human beings?
§ 27. There are several questions about this sin of our first parents which must be answered. In the first place it is asked: (I) What was the first and principal sin of the firstcreated people? Dr. Luther (commentary on Genesis 3, p. 33) concludes from Moses’ description that unbelief or defection from the Word was the first sin of man,1 for at first the devil encourages man to doubt the Word of God. Gen. 3:1: “Did God command that you not eat from every tree of Paradise?” Afterward, on the basis of the answer of Eve, who did not correctly recount God’s prohibition, the devil becomes more bold and completely denies the Word of God, v. 4: “By no means will you die.” And then, at last, he encourages her to pride, v. 5: “You will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” From this a corrupt desire seized the will of Eve and turned it from the Word, and that desire finally burst forth into an external act.
On the basis of this order of the temptation, it appears quite clear that Eve had already sinned with her unbelief when she was snatched up into the whirlpool of pride. Clear reasoning is added. As long as a person retains the Word and confidence toward God, he cannot become prideful against Him, for obedience to the Word and stubborn pride conflict with each other diametrically. Finally, as the root and beginning of conversion after the fall is faith (Heb. 11:6: “Anyone who comes to God must believe”), so the root and beginning of all unrighteousness is unbelief, according to the witness of Christ, John 3:18: “Whoever does not believe is already judged.” Verse 36: “Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life.” John 16:8–9: “The Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin, because they do not believe in the Son.”
To this opinion the ancient fathers offer their assent every time they acknowledge unbelief and disobedience in the first fall of man. For Moses’ narrative shows clearly that this was earlier than pride. Ambrose (De parad., ch. 12): “The woman adding something to the command of God is what commences the beginning of the fall. From this source the first transgression of the command began to exist.”
Prosper (Resp. ad c. Gen., dub. 3): “If Adam had not first lost his faith, he would not have lacked all the other works; for by believing the devil, he did not believe in God.”
Lyra (on Genesis 3): “As long as the state of innocence continued, there could be no disorder in the lesser powers unless this should first exist in the reason. For this reason he did not first tempt concerning the eating of the sign, but about the restriction of the command: ‘Why did He command,’ etc.?” That is to say, the command was unsuitable because you are in a free condition and are superior to all trees. The woman, moved by this, became inclined, through an inclination, to a displeasure at the command, and even more to a doubt of the threatened penalty of death.
Was pride the first sin of man?
§ 28. Bellarmine follows some of the Scholastics and claims (De amiss. grat. et statu peccat., bk. 3, ch. 4): “The first sin of Eve was pride,” which he tries to confirm with statements of Scripture, the authority of the fathers, and the influence of reason. Before we investigate these, we point out that the Scholastics themselves do not agree in every detail in this question. Lombard (Sent., 2, dist. 22, letter D):
Adam was not deceived in the same way as the woman, for he did not think that what the devil was suggesting was true. Nevertheless it can be believed that he was deceived in this: that he thought what he had committed was venial, though it was final. But he was not deceived prior to, nor in the same way as, the woman, so as to believe that God had forbidden them to touch that tree because, if they would touch it, “they would be like gods” [Gen. 3:5 Vg].
Scotus also claims: “The first sin of Adam was an inordinate love for his wife, a love not of carnal lust but of human friendship.”
On the contrary, Thomas ([ST,] 2.2., q. 163) says that the sin of both parents was pride. Bonaventure (Sent., 2, dist. 22, q. 1) concedes: “The principal sin of man through which he fell was disobedience.” But he adds: “Pride was the first step of that disobedience.” Since the doubt of Eve which precedes the temptation to pride is opposed to this opinion, Bonaventure responds to it quite coldly: “The word ‘perhaps’ [Gen. 3:3 Vg] was a mark of the result, not of doubt.” But since the Master [of the Sentences]2 expressly says that it was a mark of doubt, he adds another response: “The woman did not doubt the truth of the precept but was ignorant of its true meaning.” Thomas ([ST,] part 3, q. 8, art. 7): “From the beginning the devil tried to remove man from obedience to the divine command; yet the turning away from God has the character of an end inasmuch as it is desired under the guise of freedom.”
Ecclesiasticus 10[:12]: “The beginning of man’s pride is to depart from God.”
§ 29. Let us examine the arguments of Bellarmine by which he tries to prove that pride was the first sin of man. (I) Ecclus. 10:12–13: “The beginning of man’s pride is to depart from God, because his heart has forsaken Him who made him. For the beginning of every sin is pride.”
We respond. (1) This is an extracanonical book, and some strength must be added to this saying from the canonical books.
(2) The passage here works in favor of the opinion of Dr. Luther. For if the beginning of pride is apostasy or unbelief, which departs from the Word of God, surely the apostasy itself came before pride. Thus it is added: “because his heart has forsaken Him who made him.” In his paraphrase of these words, Bellarmine concedes: “The first act of pride occurred in that defection of man from God.” Yet that defection is nothing other than unbelief, for whoever departs from the Word of God through unbelief, by that very act also departs from God.
(3) The words which follow in the Vulgate version—“the beginning of every sin is pride”—read as follows in some Greek codices: “for the beginning of sin is pride”; but in others [they read] in this way: “for the beginning of pride is sin.” This latter reading is opposed to the opinion of Bellarmine, and yet the first reading does not confirm it. For though it is rightly said that the beginning of sin is pride or, as the ancients say, that pride has a universal influence upon all wickedness, from this, however, it is not yet proved that Adam sinned first with pride, and then afterward with unbelief.
Tobit 4[:13]: “All perdition takes its beginning in pride.”
§ 30. (II) Tobit 4[:13]: “All perdition takes its beginning in pride.”
We respond. (1) This book is also extracanonical.
(2) The Greek reads as follows: “ἐν τῇ ὑπερηφανίᾳ ἀπὡλεια καὶ ἀκαταστασία πoλλὴ,” which Pagninus translates in this way: “Pride is connected with ruin and great confusion.” Tremellius: “Much ruin and no stability are related to pride.” Obviously, the elder Tobit is warning his son away from pride on the basis that pride generally hurls man headlong into all calamities.
(3) But what does this have to do with the question about the first sin of man? We admit that pride did occur in the fall of Adam, but we add that man was led away from God’s Word, and then finally was thrown into pride and destruction.
Romans 5[:19]: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”
§ 31. (III) Rom. 5:19: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”
We respond. (1) Certainly, the sin of the first man was disobedience, because he showed himself obedient neither to God nor to God’s Word, something which confirms our opinion.
(2) Bellarmine says: “The first act of pride is to be unwilling to be subjected to the control and command of another, which is properly called disobedience, just as, on the contrary, the first act of humility is to be subject to the control and commands of others, which is properly called obedience.” We respond. As the apostle commends the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), so also the entire transgression of the first-made people can be indicated by the words “disobedience” and “pride” taken in a general sense. But if that pride and disobedience is broken up into its parts, it will become clear that our first parents were first encouraged to defect from the Word and afterward finally [turned] toward pride. We do not object if someone should wish to establish this act of sin as a part of pride taken in a general sense.
(3) What Bellarmine adds—“if the sin of the first man had been faithlessness, the apostle would neither truthfully nor literally have called it ‘disobedience’”—is patently absurd. For what is more truly and literally “disobedience” than to depart from God’s Word, to turn the heart away from God’s commands, and to believe the persuasions of Satan rather than the prohibition and added threats of God?
The statements of the ancients, that the first sin of the first humans was pride.
§ 32. The statements of the fathers which Bellarmine produces are not contrary to our opinion. “They say that man was encouraged by the devil to ambitious pride and that our first parents sinned with pride”—something not one of our people denies. Moreover, the progression of the temptation as described by Moses shows that the devil first of all tried to seduce man away from the Word of God and breathed into his heart the first secret poison of doubt before he added that empty promise of divinity. Of all the statements of the ancients, that of Augustine (De Gen. ad lit., bk. 11, ch. 30) seems the most pressing: “When” (How) “did the woman believe these words—[namely,] that they were prohibited by God from a good and useful thing—unless there had already been in her mind that love of her own power and an arrogant presumption about herself which had to be reproached and humbled through that temptation?” However, Bellarmine should read the scholia of Franciscus Maro on that passage: “The first thing that is remarkable is that theologians today do not hold this, because they say that in the state of innocence there could be no sin without their falling out of that state.”
The rational arguments that try to prove that pride was the first sin.
§ 33. Let us hear the arguments which Bellarmine forms.
(I) “Among evil acts, inner acts occur earlier than external acts, both concerning the intelligible object as well as concerning the sensible object.3 Among those internal acts, and concerning the intelligible good, the act concerning the end is earlier than the act concerning the means, because means are sought because of the end. Moreover, the end of man in evil acts is his own excellence, which is the object of pride and thus not of faithlessness.”
We respond. The fall of Adam can be considered in two ways: in intent and in execution. Here we are not investigating thoroughly the intent of the first man, but we are following the simplicity and perspicuity of Moses’ text and are claiming that the first act of commission or of execution was faithlessness or departure from God’s Word.
(II) “The mind of our first parents, illumined by divine light, could not have been induced into error unless it had first been deprived of that light by turning away from God. Therefore a turning away from God and sin preceded the faithlessness of our first parents.”
We respond. That turning away from God is nothing else but a turning away from God’s Word. For if the first people had not allowed themselves to be led away from the light of the Word by the clouds of satanic delusion, they surely would not have turned away from God nor rushed headlong into the pit of pride.
(III) “‘The mother of faithlessness is pride,’ according to Augustine (De pastorib., ch. 8). Therefore pride preceded faithlessness.”
We respond. “Pride” is taken in general for any kind of disobedience, and in this sense Augustine establishes it as the mother of faithlessness. It is also in this sense that the Scholastics say that in any sin pride and contempt for God come together virtually but not formally. Moreover, properly speaking, pride denotes a certain specific sin, and in this question the term is used with that meaning.
(IV) “In sins, is the turning toward a created good not prior to turning away from an uncreated good, given that the turning away is neither good nor desirable? But now, faithlessness is a turning away from the greatest good, and pride is turning toward one’s own good. Therefore the latter is prior to the former.”
We respond. Again, the intention and the execution of the first sin are being confused. To be sure, on the basis of the hypothesis, pride came first in Adam as he sinned with regard to his intent. Meanwhile, the actual fault and the external transgression are described by Moses in such a way that Eve first removed the Word of God from her eye. Furthermore, man could not have turned to his own excellence through inordinate love before he had been deceived by the devil and removed God’s Word from his eyes. For God had commanded him not to turn to his own excellence through an inordinate love but to exercise himself in obedience to the command about not eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree.
The counterarguments of Bellarmine.
§ 34. The counterarguments by which Bellarmine (in De amiss. grat. et stat. peccat., bk. 3, ch. 5) tries to crush the force of our arguments do not hit the target.
(I) “Satan was trying to seduce Eve not only into faithlessness and disobedience but also into pride. Thus the woman was first seduced into pride, and afterward, in the end, she believed the devil and did not believe God.”
We respond. Moses’ text clearly says the opposite, for at their first meeting Satan addresses Eve in this way: “Did God command you …?” etc. Only later does he add: “You will be like gods” [Gen. 3:1, 5]. When the lying serpent brought that promise of his out into the open, Eve already had departed from the Word of God, something which that word of doubt, “perhaps” [Gen. 3:3 Vg], clearly shows in her words.
(II) “Because faith is the origin of righteousness, faithlessness is not the origin but the end of unrighteousness; for what is first in generation is last in resolution. For this reason it is never said in the Scriptures that the beginning of all sin is faithlessness but that the beginning of all sin is desire, that is, a love of self or pride.”
We respond. We establish the following analogy between the state of sin and the renewal of man: as the first people, having abandoned the light of the Word, first fell into the darkness of unbelief and were later hurled by the devil into pride, disobedience, and various sins, and as in this way the very beautiful structure of the divine image was destroyed in them, in this way also God will renew this temple, placing before man His Word through which the Holy Spirit kindles faith, which is the foundation for every good work.
Contrary affections and contrary effects belong to contraries. Faith and unbelief are contraries. Therefore faith and unbelief have contrary affections and effects. As good works of all kinds proceed from faith, so from unbelief come sins of all kinds. As often as Scripture asserts this, so often does it declare that unbelief is the principal and chief sin. As long as it remains, the other sins remain; when it is removed, the other sins are also taken away. (See John 3:18, 36; 16:8–9; Rom. 14:23.) Augustine (on John, tractate 95): “He places this sin ahead of the rest, as if it were the only one, because while this one remains, the rest are kept, and when this one goes away, the rest are dismissed.” (See also John Huss, Sermon de elucid. fid.)
I will pass over the fact that the apostle’s words in 1 Tim. 6:10 are being twisted into a foreign sense by Bellarmine, as if in them pride is being established as the root of every sin, because the meaning of the words and the circumstances of the text clearly prove that they are speaking about the love of money.
(III) “Adam would not have been disbelieving the Word of God if he had not turned away from God through self-exaltation, if he had not, deprived of the divine light, begun to grow dark.”
We respond. On the contrary, in fact, the mind of Adam, illumined by divine light, would not have turned away from God through self-exaltation had it not first departed from the Word. It is impossible to make a judgment concerning the first sin more correctly than on the basis of the progression of the temptation described by Moses. The serpent first attacks God’s Word and at the same time breathes the poison of doubt within the heart of Eve. Afterward, when the light of the Word is at last removed, he hurls her into the darkness of pride.
(IV) “The beginning of pride in man could have existed without a preceding error of the mind, solely through a lack of thinking or considering.”
We respond. On the contrary, Eve would never have given an occasion to the persuasions of Satan as he encouraged her to pride and disobedience if she did not believe his deceiving and lying promise. The will never sins in deed before an error in the mind occurs first. The very lack of thinking was the beginning of the departure from the Word, which man ought to have embraced tightly and faithfully.
§ 35. Bonaventure (Sent., 2, dist. 22, q. 1) cites another argument. Salvation corresponds to the transgression by antithesis. Yet salvation began with the faith of Mary. Luke 1:[45]: “Blessed are you who believed.” Therefore transgression also began with the faithlessness of Eve.
Bonaventure responds: “Although faith held a not inconsiderable place in the conception of the Son of God, yet humility had the preeminent use by which the Virgin is said to have pleased God, just as she herself said, ‘God has looked upon the low estate of His handmaiden’ [Luke 1:48].” Yet abasement is one thing; humility, another. The former indicates a status of condition; the latter, a disposition of the mind. Mary is not boasting about the merit of humility but is declaring the virtue of God, who considers humble things. Thus the force of the argument remains unweakened. As Mary had faith in the words of the angel and conceived in her virginal womb the Son of God, through whom we are redeemed from our sins, so Eve had faith in the words of Satan and later brought Adam into fellowship with her sin, through whom sin entered into the world. The Glossa on Luke 1: “The woman, seduced by the angel, brought on death; the woman, instructed by the angel, produced salvation.”
Tertullian (De carn. Christi, ch. 14): “The word that built death had crept into the virgin Eve, and the Word of God which would construct life was equally going to be introduced into a virgin.”
Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 33): “What the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” Book 5, p. 587: “As Eve was misled by the talk of the angel to flee from God when she had transgressed His Word, so also Mary was evangelized by the talk of the angel to bear God as she was obedient to His Word.”
Bonaventure (Sent., 3, dist. 2, n. 4): “Just as the devil tempted the woman in order to draw her to doubt, and through doubt to draw her to consent and to fall, so the angel announced to the Virgin in order to excite her toward faith, and through faith to consent, and through consent to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit.”
Was Adam deceived in the proper sense [of the word]?
§ 36. The second question is: (II) Was Adam deceived in the proper sense [of the word]? Bellarmine (De amiss. grat. et stat. peccat., bk. 3, ch. 7) denies this and seeks his reason in the words of the apostle in 1 Tim. 2:14: “And Adam was not deceived.”
We respond. This must not be understood absolutely and simply, as if Adam were by no means deceived, but in reference to the order of the deception. Clearly, Adam was not deceived first, since Eve, deceived by the serpent, was the cause of transgression for Adam; the words following confirm this explanation: “Eve was deceived in transgression.” That is, she was the cause of Adam’s transgression. (See Theodoret and Oecumenius, commentaries on this passage.)
Yet the argument of the apostle [cf. 1 Tim. 2:12] is not weakened by this explanation. A woman should not teach nor dominate the man because the beginning of sin came from the woman. But the manner of teaching in which the woman taught the man turns out badly here, for she did not so much teach or lead him as she deceived him. In punishment for this deception she was subjected to the man [Gen. 3:16], and the genuine dominion of woman over man is incompatible with this divine judgment.
Arguments for the affirmative position.
§ 37. Furthermore, it is clear from the following reasons that one must not simply and absolutely deny that Adam was deceived: (1) If he was not deceived by another, he still was deceived by himself. Bellarmine (in the preceding ch. 6) writes this from Augustine: “Adam thought it would be venial if, so as not to sadden his wife, he would eat of the fruit contrary to God’s command. He also erred in this: when he saw that the woman did not die after eating the food, he persuaded himself that he would not die if he ate the same food. Finally, he believed that he would be like God. In any case, with these thoughts he deceived himself and departed from God’s Word.” In this way in 2 Tim. 3:13 they are called deceivers who deceive both themselves and others. In Jer. 14:14 the false prophets are said to prophesy the deceit of their own heart. 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.”
(2) Although Eve may not have had the intent to deceive, nevertheless truly and properly speaking she deceived Adam, since Scripture does not always evaluate deceptions and scandals on the basis of the intent to deceive and scandalize but on the basis of the actual deception, that is, because a person actually says or does something which can deceive or scandalize another person. All heretics are deceivers (1 John 2:26; 3:7), yet they do not all have the intent to deceive. Some of them claim that they are preaching utter truth. In Matt. 16:23, Christ says to Peter: “Get behind Me, Satan; you are a stumbling block for Me,” that is, you advise the sort of things which are truly stumbling blocks, though in actuality they do not cause Me to stumble.
(3) When Eve handed her husband the fruit to eat, she had already then been deceived by the devil. Accordingly, notice should be taken not so much of the mind of Eve as of the intent of the devil, who also misled Adam himself through Eve and brought him into fellowship with sin. As a result, God accuses Adam of obeying the word of his wife (Gen. 3:17).
(4) Moreover, many of the ancients say clearly that Adam was deceived, as, for instance, Ignatius (Letter ad Trall.), Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 35), Epiphanius (Haeres. 38); Chrysostom (on 1 Timothy, homily 9), Ambrose (De parad., ch. 4), Augustine (on Psalm 68), etc.
Could our first parents have sinned venially?
§ 38. (III) The question arises: Could Adam’s sin have been venial?
We respond. We shall show in its own place that every sin is mortal by its nature [cf. On Actual Sins, Commonplace XIII, §§ 92–102]; hence it readily appears that no sin at all, nor any sort of punishment, could have a place in the state of innocence as such, due to the complete felicity of man and his conformity with God. But since the Scholastics claim that some sins are by their nature venial, they are not agreed on this question.
Scotus (Sent., 2, dist. 21, q. 1) and others claim: “It could have happened that Adam sinned venially.” This is opposed by Thomas, Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Richard, and many others whom the Jesuits today follow, as one can see in Pererius (on Genesis, bk. 5, disp. 2, q. 2) and Bellarmine (De stat. pecc., bk. 3, ch. 8).
But these scarcely satisfy the argument of Scotus, which goes as follows: “If Adam could have sinned mortally, he also could have sinned venially, because a mortal sin is more repugnant to original righteousness.” Bonaventure responds: “Those sins which are now venial would have become mortal in the state of innocence because of the supreme perfection of that state and because of the dignity of the person.”
But Thomas does not approve of this, and rightly so, for it is absurd that what is venial today would have been mortal before the fall, as if the fall had changed the nature of sin. He himself responds in this way ([ST,] 1.2., q. 89, art. 3): “In the state of innocence there was an infallible stability of order, so that the inferior was always contained under the superior, inasmuch as the substance of man was contained under God. Thus it was necessary that there be no disorder in man, unless it were to begin from the fact that the substance of man was not subject to God.” Yet this very thing opposes the argument of Scotus: if man, persuaded by the devil, could have turned himself voluntarily and completely, then some thoughtlessness could also have deceived him through the prompting of Satan.
Besides the argument of Thomas, Bellarmine also provides this rational argument: “If venial sin were to have a place in the state of innocence, it will follow that fear and pain will also have a place in that state.” Yet, on the basis of the hypothesis of the Scholastics, not every venial sin draws punishment with it, since it is not against [contra] the Law but only outside [praeter] the Law. Furthermore, Bellarmine claims (ch. 5 of this book): “A sort of thoughtlessness or inconsideration preceded the act of pride, but this is contradicted by the fact that the latter was the first sin of man.” Surely that thoughtlessness would have been a venial sin, if the following sin of pride was the first mortal sin.
Which of the first parents sinned more seriously?
§ 39. (IV) The question arises: Did Adam sin more seriously than did Eve?
We consider this a useless and unprofitable question because it is enough to know that the sin of both was very serious, even without making that comparison. Thomas ([ST,] 2.2., q. 163, art. 4):
If we consider the condition of the person, the sin of the man was more serious. As far as the type of sin is concerned, the sin of both is equal, namely, pride. As far as the type of pride is concerned, Eve sinned more seriously. (1) Because her pride elevated her to the point that, contrary to the will of God, she wanted to achieve a divine likeness. The man was arrogant to the extent that he wanted to achieve it on his own. (2) The woman not only sinned herself but also suggested sin to the man. (3) The man consented in this sin by a sort of amiable goodwill.
Bonaventure (Sent., 2, dist. 22, q. 3):
With regard to ingratitude, the man sinned more seriously than the woman because he sinned more from a wicked will when he desired to be like God. With regard to the corruption that stems from the blame, the woman sinned more seriously because sin proceeded from her into Adam and his descendants by way of [giving an] opportunity. Otherwise it can be said that sin should first be considered in regard to the sinner and, second, in regard to the sin itself. In the first way the sin of Adam was more serious, but in the latter way the sin of Eve was more serious.
Biel (Sent., 2, dist. 22, q. 1, art. 3): “The sin of Eve considered simply was more serious than the sin of Adam, for it proceeded from a greater pride, a greater passion and contempt for God, and a more serious punishment followed also.” Article 4: “The sin of Adam was more serious because of the circumstance of the dignity of his person, the fortitude of his resistance, because of his prudence and the vigor of his condemnation, and with respect to the result.”
We are pleased with these words of Augustine (De Gen. ad lit., bk. 11, ch. 25): “Our first parents, unequal in gender, sinned with equal arrogance.” Therefore Lombard’s thought is false (Sent., 2, dist. 22, letter E): “Adam was free from an ambition for divinity.” The contrary clearly stands in Gen. 3:22.
Bellarmine claims (De amiss. grat. et stat. peccat., bk. 3, ch. 9): “The man acknowledged neither error nor fault; thus he sinned more seriously than did the woman.” Nevertheless he writes (in ch. 12) these same words from Irenaeus: “As a sign of his repentance he clothed himself with a harsh girdle of fig leaves, like sackcloth and a hair shirt.” But how could he have given those signs of repentance without an admission of guilt?
Was the sin of Adam the most serious of all sins?
§ 40. (V) The question arises: Was the sin of Adam the most serious of all sins?
We respond. Adam represented the whole human race; he had been created in the greatest integrity and uprightness, and thus he was able to obey the command of God without any difficulty. In these respects the sin of Adam was more serious than all the sins of his descendants. Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 14, ch. 12):
No one should think that the sin
(of our first parents)
was thus light and small because it was committed in food—nor indeed bad or harmful, save for the fact that it had been forbidden. But obedience had been commended by the precept, which virtue is, in a way, a mother and guardian of all virtues in the rational creature. In fact, a creature is created in such a way that subjection is beneficial to it, while doing its own will and not the will of the one by whom it was created is destructive. Thus this command about not eating one kind of food when there was so great a supply of other foods—a command so easy to observe, so short for remembering, especially when desire was not yet resistant to the will, which ensued only later as the punishment for transgression—the sin of violating this command was all the greater in proportion to the ease with which its observance could be maintained.
Augustine again (Enchirid. ad Laur., ch. 26): “Adam bound his progeny in the penalty of death and damnation; by sinning he corrupted them in himself as their root.” De corrept. et grat. (ch. 12): “With no one threatening him and, what is more, contrary to the command of God, who was threatening, Adam used his free will and did not remain in such happiness, in such a happiness of not sinning.”
The Scholastics argue that the sin of Adam was not the most serious sin simply, but because of some of its circumstances. (See their commentaries on Sent., 2, dist. 21.)
Did Adam sin out of ignorance?
§ 41. (VI) The question arises: Was the sin of Adam excusable through ignorance?
We respond. Some ignorance is invincible; some is voluntary and affected. Augustine (De grat. et lib. arbitr., ch. 3): “It is one thing to not know; it is another to be unwilling to know.” De libero arbitrio (bk. 3, ch. 22): “What one does not know by nature and what one cannot know by nature are not counted against a soul as guilt, but that which it was uninterested in knowing is so reckoned. Yet certainly the first parents were created after the image of God, that is, in perfect wisdom, righteousness, and holiness. How, then, could they have been ignorant of the will of God, which God had clearly made known with a prohibition?”
Biel (Sent., 2, dist. 22, q. 2, art. 1): “Before the sin there was neither mistake nor ignorance in our first parents concerning those things which pertain to salvation, because they knew the commandment and they also knew that this act was against the commandment.” Article 3: “The sin of our first parents did not proceed from an ignorance of the Law nor from weakness but from choice, that is, from the deliberate and full knowledge of the deformity of their action.”
1 See Lectures on Genesis (1535–45/1544–54), AE 1:147 (WA 42:110–11).
2 I.e., Peter Lombard.
3 An “intelligible object” is something that can be thought or understood (by the intellect or reason) above and beyond the senses, whereas a “sensible object” is something that can be sensed (by the senses).