Chapter Xxiii
which a reproductive nature was given to him, and human nature cannot he rescued from those evils into which it fell.
Now someone will ask, 'If individuals do not have the sin of Adam, why do you maintain that no one is saved without there being a satisfaction for Adam's sin? For how can a just God demand satisfaction from them for a sin which they do not have?' But as I said in the Cur Deus Homo, God does not demand more than He ought to from any sinner; and since no sinner can repay as much as he owes, Christ alone made payment for those who are saved, repaying even more than they owe.
At this point we ought also to consider another reason why the sin in infants is less than the sin in Adam, even though sin is transmitted from him unto all men. For through one man, i.e., through Adam, 'sin entered into the world, and through sin death.' (Rom. 5:12)
CHAPTER XXIII
Why and How Adam's Sin Was Transmitted to Infants Unless we understand why and how the sin of Adam is present in infants, then we shall not know why it is less in them than in Adam. Although we were previously discussing this question insofar as it was necessary for the problem then at hand, nevertheless it will not be superfluous to repeat certain things briefly. Now, it cannot be denied that infants existed in Adam when he sinned.
But they existed in Adam causally (or materially) as if in his seed; and they exist in themselves personally. For in Adam they were his very seed, while in themselves they are individual and different persons. Insofar as they existed in Adam, they were not different from Adam; but insofar as they exist in them selves, they are different from him. In Adam they were Adam, but in themselves they are themselves. Therefore, all infants existed in Adam, but they did not
• ; r ;*
exist in Adam as themselves--since they did not yet exist as themselves /i.e., exist pers onally/.
Perhaps someone will say, 'That existence in terms of which other men are said to have existed in Adam is so empty as to he nothing, and should not even be called "existence."' But then he should also say that the exis tence whereby Christ existed in Abraham and in David and in the other fore fathers as their seed was also nothing or empty or false. And he should also term 'nothing' the existence whereby all those things that come from seeds were first in seeds; and he should also assert that God created nothing when
He created the seminal existence of all those things which are later pro created from seeds. But such a seminal existence is not nothing; for if it were nothing then those things which exist from seeds would also be nothing.
For unless those things which nature produces from seeds were first something in those seeds themselves, then such things could not exist from seeds in any way at all. Therefore, if it is not foolish to think that the things which nature produces from seeds are something in those seeds before being produced from them, then the existence by which all men were in Adam is not false or empty, but is true and solid existence. So too, God did not create an empty something when He created all men to exist in Adam in this way. But as I said above, in him they were not different from him, and they were not yet what they were later to be in themselves.
Now although it is true that all men were in Adam, nevertheless the Son of the Virgin was in Adam in a way vastly different from other men. For all others were in Adam in such a way that they existed from him through that re productive nature which was subject to his power and his will, but Jesus alone was not in Adam in such a way that He existed from him through his reproductive
• 1 \
3^ nature or his will. Hence at the time that Adam sinned, it had been established that he was the one from whom all other men were going to exist--and going to exist by way of propagation. But though it had been established that Adam was the one from whom Jesus was going to exist, yet Jesus was not going to exist from him by way of propagation--because it was not in Adam's power that Jesus should be propagated from him. And it was also not in Adam's power to make
Jesus either from another being or from nothing. Hence, it did not lie within the power of Adam that Jesus should exist in any way. For it was neither in the power of his nature nor in the power of his will to cause Jesus to exist in any way whatsoever. Nevertheless, there did exist in Adam that nature from which Jesus was going to be propagated by the power of God (and not by the power of Adam). For even though the human will inseminated, and nature brought forth, offspring in the lineage from Adam to the Virgin Mother, so that the Virgin received her own existence from Adam in the same way that we all do (viz., partly by the natural order and partly by the voluntary order), nevertheless in the Virgin neither nature nor the will of the creature produced offspring; but rather 'the Holy Spirit and the Power of the Most High' (Luke 1:35) mira culously begat a man from the Virgin Mother. Therefore, it was in Adam--that is, in his power of propagation--that all men (except Jesus) should exist from him. But it was not in Adam's power to cause Jesus to exist from him at all-just as it was not in the power of the clay from which the first man was created to cause Adam to exist from it by means of a miracle. Nor was it in Adam's power to cause Fve to exist from him in the miraculous way that she did. So too, although Jesus existed in the lineage of persons from Adam to Mary, it was not in the power of any of these persons to cause Him to exist.
Nevertheless, Jesus existed in them; for just as the first man existed in the
clay from which he was created, and just as Eve existed in Adam from whom she was created--though neither of them was created hy the will or power of the creature, hut solely hy the power of God--so too, because Jesus existed in those from whom He was to he assumed, He existed in His ancestors. And to the extent that being made God-Man is greater than being made pure man, to that same extent is the grace and miracle of Jesus's begottenness greater than that of Adam and Eve's. Hence, at the time Adam sinned, Jesus was in Adam in a quite different way from those who are begotten from Adam through the natural and voluntary orders. There is, then, a certain sense in which Adam does make other men whenever the human will and human nature procreate them through a power which the will and nature have received from God. But God alone made
Jesus. For even though Jesus is from Adam, He is not through Adam but through Himself and even, as it were, from Himself.
Therefore, what is more suitable for showing the magnitude of God's good ness and the plentitude of grace granted to Adam than that Adam had the power to cause other men who existed through him to be what he was by nature. Ey the great goodness of God, Adam was given the freedom of choice by which to propagate men who would have the same quality of justice and happiness in their wills that he had in his. But even though Adam was established in such lofty grace, he nonetheless freely deserted the goods which were given him and which were to be kept for himself and for his posterity. For this reason, his des cendants lost the goods which Adam their father could have given them--had he kept these goods rather than cast them away. To understand this fully, we must carefully consider pure justice, giving no heed to our prejudices
(which often hinder the mind from understanding uprightness). And if we do this, then it seems to me that what I have said above constitutes a sufficient
:? -
reason for the sin and evils of Adam to descend to infants. Nonetheless, I shall say a hit more about my views concerning the way that Adam's sin is transmitted to his descendants.
Earlier, I said that there is a sin which comes from a person and a sin which comes from a nature. The sin which comes from a person can be called
'personal* sin, and the sin which comes from a nature can be called 'natural,' or 'original,' sin. Now, just as what is personal passes over into what is natural, so what is natural passes over into what is personal. For example, nature re quired that Adam eat something, because it was nature's ordained role to make such a requirement. But when Adam ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, it was not a natural will, but his own personal will that did this. Nevertheless al though the person did this thing, he did not do it apart from his nature. For the first man was a person insofar as he was called 'Adam'; and he was a nature inso far as he was called 'man.' The person, therefore, made the nature sinful, be cause when Adam sinned man sinned. Nevertheless, it was not because he was man that he was impelled to partake of what was forbidden; rather, he was drawn to this by his own desire and will--which originated in his person and not in his nature. But this order of nature and person is reversed in the infants who are conceived from Adam. For the fact that the justice which they should have is not in them is not the fault of a personal will (as it was in Adam's case), but results because the nature which they receive from Adam lacks this justice. For human nature--which did not exist outside of Adam at the time he sinned-~was stripped of the justice which it possessed; and it forever after lacks justice unless it is aided by God. Hence, because human nature subsists in persons and because persons do not exist without natures, human nature causes the per sons of infants to be sinful. So in Adam the person deprived human nature of