Part II, Chapter II, Section 3, Article 2: The Sin of Adam Considered as Original Sin in the Technical Sense

Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part II, Chapter II, §3, Article 2 (pp. 239–259)

1. Heretical Theories and Their Condemnation by the Church

Theologically as well as historically the different heresies that have arisen in regard to original sin may be reduced to three main heads. (1) Manichaeism, Priscillianism, and Pre-existentism hold that there is a sin of nature (peccatum naturale),¹ but no original sin in the technical sense of the word. (2) Pelagianism teaches that there is a primeval sin, but no sin of nature and no original sin. (3) Protestantism and Jansenism contend that there is a sin of nature which is at the same time original sin, but that original sin is identical with concupiscence and destroys free-will, thereby seriously impairing human nature.

a) The earlier heresies concerning original sin all revolve around the problem of evil. The Manichaeans and Priscillianists admitted the existence of a sin of nature, but attributed it to an absolutely evil principle, which they called hyle (flesh), and which, they declared, necessarily contaminates the spirit on coming in contact with it. The Pre-existentists, or Origenists, conceived natural sin as the result of a moral catastrophe in the realm of pure spirits, antedating the existence of matter. All of these writers to a greater or less extent deny the doctrine of original sin.²

b) A far more radical heresy was that of the Pelagians. They admitted that Adam sinned, but denied that his sin is transmitted to his descendants. Pelagius himself and Coelestius³ maintained the following errors: (1) Man, as now constituted, does not differ essentially in endowment from Adam before the Fall. The only difference (an accidental one) is that personal sins are committed in the present order.⁴ (2) New-born infants do not bring original sin with them into the world; they are baptized not “for the forgiveness of sins,” but merely that they may be enabled to attain to the regnum coelorum, which, in the mind of these heretics, is something quite different from eternal life. (3) The sin which Adam committed in Paradise injured him, but not his descendants, except in so far as their will power is weakened by his bad example. (4) Since Adam’s sin is not transmitted to his descendants, they cannot be punished for it. Death is not a punishment for sin, but a necessity of nature (necessitas naturae), and concupiscence is merely nature’s way of asserting itself (vigor naturae).

Few heresies were so vigorously combated from their very birth, and condemned by so many councils, as Pelagianism. During the short period from A.D. 412 (or 411) to 431 no less than twenty-four councils, in the East and in the West, denounced the new sect. Prominent among them is the Second Council of Mileve (416); its canons were taken over by a plenary council held at Carthage in 418, and approved and promulgated by Pope Zosimus in his Epistola Tractoria. Pelagianism was cut to the quick by the second canon of this council, which reads as follows: “Quicumque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat aut dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati, quod regenerationis lavacro expietur, unde sit consequens, ut in eis forma baptismatis ‘in remissionem peccatorum’ non vere sed false intelligatur, anathema sit” — Whoever denies that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth, or asserts that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but do not contract from Adam original sin, which must be expiated in the waters of regeneration, and that consequently the baptismal form “for the remission of sins” applies to them not truly, but falsely; let him be anathema. The Council bases this definition on Rom. V, 12 sqq., and on ecclesiastical Tradition, and concludes: “Propter hanc enim regulam fidei etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt” — According to this rule of faith little children, who are as yet unable to commit actual sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that by regeneration they may be cleansed of that which they have contracted by generation.⁵

The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) imposed this teaching on all clerics under pain of deposition, and the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529) dealt Pelagianism a further blow by defining: “Si quis soli Adae praevaricationem suam, non et eius propagini asserit nocuisse, aut certe mortem tantum corporis, quae poena peccati est, non autem et peccatum, quod mors est animae, per unum hominem in omne genus humanum transiisse testatur, iniustitiam Deo dabit contradicens Apostolo dicenti: Per unum hominem, etc.” — If any one asserts that the prevarication of Adam injured himself only and not his progeny, or alleges that bodily death, which is the penalty of sin, but not sin, which is the death of the soul, was brought by one man upon the entire human race, he attributes an injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says: “By one man, etc.”

c) In more modern times we meet with two great heresies which misrepresented the nature of original sin by describing it as an intrinsic and radical corruption of nature. The two heresies in question are Protestantism and Jansenism. They denied free-will⁶ and asserted that concupiscence is the formal element of original sin.

Zwingli flatly denied that original sin involves real guilt, and thus reverted to the teaching of Pelagius, from whom, however, he differed by entirely rejecting the doctrine of free-will. Jansenism (Baius, Jansenius, Quesnel) held that original sin formally consists in concupiscence, and that every act performed without grace is sinful.⁷

The Protestant conception of original sin was solemnly condemned by the Tridentine Council in its supremely important Decretum de Peccato Originali.⁸ The first of the five canons of this decree describes the sin of Adam and the consequences which it entailed upon himself.⁹ Canon II defines how “sin, which is the death of the soul,”¹⁰ is transmitted from Adam to his descendants.¹¹ Canon III defines original sin as “one in its origin, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own.” Canon IV substantially repeats the second canon of the Council of Mileve,¹² on the effect of infant baptism as the ordinary means of purging the soul from guilt. Canon V defines the effect of Baptism to be an actual remission of sin, and reduces the influence of concupiscence to its true bounds. We reproduce this canon in full because of its dogmatic importance: “Si quis per Iesu Christi gratiam, quae in baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti negat; aut etiam asserit, non tolli totum id, quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud dicit tantum radi aut non imputari, anathema sit” — If any one denies that, by the grace of Jesus Christ, which is conferred by baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only erased or not imputed, let him be anathema.

Consequently it is an article of faith that original sin is real sin, and that its entire guilt is blotted out by Baptism. “In renatis enim nihil odit Deus,” the Tridentine Fathers add, “quia nihil est damnationis iis, qui vere consepulti sunt cum Christo per baptisma in mortem” — In those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by Baptism into death.

As for the innate predisposition to sin, the fomes peccati or concupiscence which remains in man after Baptism, the Council solemnly declares: “Hanc concupiscentiam, quam aliquando Apostolus peccatum appellat, sancta Synodus declarat, Ecclesiam catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat. Si quis autem contrarium senserit, anathema sit” — This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary sentiment, let him be anathema. Hence it is also an article of faith that concupiscence as such is not really sin, but is merely so called by metonymy, because “it is of sin and inclines to sin.”

The Jansenist teaching on original sin was condemned as heretical by Popes Pius V, Innocent X, Clement XI, and Pius VI.

2. Scriptural Proof for the Existence of Original Sin

The dogma of original sin implies, first, the existence of habitual sin in man from birth, and, secondly, its connexion with the sin of Adam. Adam’s sin, in as far as it was personal, could not fall on his descendants. Like his death, it was by its very nature incommunicable. Original sin is consequently not a personal sin but a sin of nature, which inheres in all human individuals as guilt, and is a true sin only in its logical connexion with Adam’s voluntary transgression of the divine command in Paradise.

a) The nature of original sin is far less sharply defined in the Old than in the New Testament. The oft-quoted text Ps. L, 7: “Ecce in iniquitatibus conceptus sum et in peccatis concepit me mater mea” — Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me, seems from the context to refer rather to concupiscence, i.e., the inclination which draws all men to evil, and which the Psalmist mentions in extenuation of his own unrighteousness. Some of the Fathers of the Church, it is true, quote this passage against the Pelagians,¹³ but in doing so their main object is to demonstrate that Adam’s sin injuriously affected his descendants. That the injury which it inflicted is identical with original sin can hardly be proved from this text, unless it be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

A somewhat more conclusive text is Job XIV, 1 sqq., which was cited already by the Fathers as an argument for the existence of original sin. The passage runs as follows: “Man born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries. … Who can make him clean that is unclean? Not one.” This is a literal translation of the Hebrew text. The Vulgate brings out the sense of the passage more clearly thus: “Quis potest facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine? Nonne tu qui solus es?” — Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? Is it not thou who only art? The meaning plainly is: No one but God can sanctify a man conceived in ethical uncleanness, i.e., in sin. There is no question here of Levitical uncleanness. The Sacred Writer plainly means that every man is conceived in original sin, though he does not explicitly mention the relation of man’s guilt to the sin of Adam, a relation which not even St. Paul himself emphasized on all occasions. Cfr. Eph. II, 3: “Nos … eramus natura (φύσει) filii irae, sicut et ceteri” — We … were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

b) The locus classicus for our dogma is Rom. V, 12–21. St. Paul in this passage draws a sublime parallel between “all” (πάντες, οἱ πολλοί) and the “one” who, under one aspect, is the first Adam as the author of sin and death, and under another, the second Adam (i.e., Christ) as the Father of grace and salvation. The passage may be divided into three sections, all of which clearly bring out the doctrine of original sin.

α) Consider in the first place Rom. V, 12: “Sicut per unum hominem peccatum (ἡ ἁμαρτία) in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo (ἐφ’ ᾧ) omnes peccaverunt” — As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

According to the context εἷς ἄνθρωπος here can only mean Adam, who is the author of sin and death. By peccatum (ἡ ἁμαρτία) St. Paul evidently means a real sin, in the strict sense of the term, not mere concupiscence, or death as the penalty of sin. If peccatum spelled death, the text would contain a tautology: “By one man death entered into this world, and by death, death.” If it meant concupiscence (which, it is true, St. Paul in Rom. VII, 17, also calls peccatum, but only by metonymy), the sense would be: “By one man concupiscence entered into this world, and by concupiscence, death.” But concupiscence is not per se sinful, much less a sin by which “all men sinned.” We must also take into consideration that Adam was not punished with death on account of his concupiscence, but for his disobedience, which was a grievous sin. The Apostle expressly says: “Per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi” — By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners.¹⁴ It is quite obvious that the “sin” which, together with death, was by “one man” transmitted to all others, cannot be identical with the personal transgression of Adam. Like the death of Adam, this sin was not communicable to others, and moreover the Apostle never calls it ἁμαρτία, but sometimes παράβασις (praevaricatio), occasionally παράπτωμα (delictum), or παρακοή (inobedientia). Consequently it can only be the habitual sin of Adam (habitus peccati) which “entered into this world” through him, i.e., was by him transmitted to all his progeny. The anacoluthic clause, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον — in whom all have sinned — is taken by the older Latin Fathers and by a number of councils as a relative sentence, and interpreted thus: “In quo [scil. uno homine, i.e., Adam] omnes peccaverunt” — And in him [i.e., in this one man, Adam], all have sinned. This may be said to embody the traditional view, since it has been the constant belief of Christians that all men sinned in Adam. Nor is there anything in the Greek text of Rom. V, 12 to disprove this construction. In New Testament Greek ἐπί is sometimes used interchangeably with ἐν, e.g., ἐπ’ ὀνόματι for ἐν ὀνόματι. Since Erasmus, however, many Catholic exegetes prefer to take ἐφ’ ᾧ causally for ὅτι (ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, eo quod, quia, which may be a Hebraism). It must be admitted that this interpretation is more in conformity with the Greek idiom than the phrase ἁμαρτάνειν ἐπί (for ἐν) τινι. Nor does it in any way impair the dogmatic bearing of the text. If ἐφ’ ᾧ be construed relatively, the sense of the passage is: “All men have sinned in Adam;” if causally, it means: “All men (and consequently children too) must die, because all have sinned.”

The trend of the Pauline argument therefore is: The sin of this one man Adam is exactly co-extensive with the death of the body, which entered this world in consequence of it. Now, infants too must die. This can assuredly not be a punishment for personal sins, as they are incapable of sinning. Hence they suffer the penalty of death because the habitual sin of Adam has been transmitted to them. It is this habitual sin we call original sin. Consequently all men are born in the state of original sin.

β) Proceeding with his demonstration the Apostle continues:¹⁵ “Usque ad legem enim peccatum erat in mundo; peccatum autem non imputabatur, quum lex non esset. Sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen etiam in eos, qui non peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae, qui est forma futuri” — For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

Though St. Paul in this passage refers to the personal transgressions of men “from Adam unto Moses” rather than to the habitual sin of our progenitor, the context shows that peccatum here again is used in the sense of moral transgression. The Apostle notes that “until the law,” that is, up to the time when the Mosaic code took effect, personal crimes were “not imputed,” i.e., not punished by death, and that nevertheless death reigned “even over them who have not (μή) sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam,” i.e., in the manner in which Adam sinned. The negative particle μή (not) is absent from some codices and Patristic citations of the passage; but modern textual criticism has fully established its authenticity. It occurs in the majority of extant MSS. as well as in the Itala, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta, and the rhetorical figure which the Apostle employs in this passage (auxesis) clearly demands it.

St. Paul evidently wishes to meet an objection which might arise from his expression “πάντες ἥμαρτον — all have sinned.” “All men have sinned personally,” it might be argued, “and therefore all men must die.” True, replies the Apostle, the men who lived “from Adam unto Moses” did commit many personal sins. But it was not on this account they had to die. For there was not then any positive law which punished personal sins by death, as was the case later under the Mosaic code. Yet “death reigned from Adam unto Moses,” even over those who (such as infants) were not guilty of personal sin. Consequently, death was not a punishment for personal sin, but for that particular ἁμαρτία which “entered into this world” through the fault of Adam, i.e., original sin.

γ) An additional argument for the existence of original sin is contained in Rom. V, 18 sq.: “Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius [scil. Christi] iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae. Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis [scil. Adae] peccatores constituti sunt multi (ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί), ita et per unius obeditionem iusti constituentur multi (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί)” — Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. The Apostle’s reasoning is quite transparent. He develops the parallel between Adam and Christ, which he had begun in verse 12. The reader will note the sharp antithesis between constituti peccatores by the disobedience of Adam, and constituti iusti by the obedience of Christ. The human race (πάντες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πολλοί) has by the sin of Adam become a race of sinners, precisely as, by the “justification of life” through Christ, it has recovered justice. Now, justification is effected by the grace of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost;”¹⁶ consequently, the sin of Adam inheres in man from birth, it is really and truly inherited.

It may be objected that, since “many” but not all were justified by and in Christ, so a pari “many,” but not all men were tainted by the sin of Adam, namely those who imitated Adam’s sinful conduct. But St. Paul expressly rejects this construction. Moreover, there is a perfect parity between “being born” and “being born again;” for as no man contracts original sin except by descent from Adam, so no man is justified except he be born again of the Holy Ghost. That the number of individuals in the two contrasted groups is unequal, is due to the fact that descent from Adam is inevitable, while spiritual regeneration depends upon a voluntary act, i.e., the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.¹⁷

3. The Argument from Tradition

Belief in the existence of original sin dates back to Apostolic times. This can be shown: (a) from the constant practice of infant Baptism, and (b) from the verbal teaching of the Fathers.

a) The necessity of infant Baptism (paedobaptismus) has always been regarded as a conclusive argument for the existence of original sin. Baptism of its very nature is a sacrament instituted “for the forgiveness of sins.”¹⁸ If, therefore, new-born infants must be baptized “for the forgiveness of sins,” and their sin, unlike that of adults, cannot be personal sin, then it must be original sin. This argument, which St. Augustine effectively employed against Bishop Julian of Eclanum,¹⁹ was extremely repugnant to the Pelagians.²⁰

Origen testifies to the early practice of baptizing infants in order that they might obtain forgiveness of their sins.²¹ St. Cyprian says: “Si a baptismo atque gratia nemo prohibetur, quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit” — Since nobody is denied baptism and grace, how much more ought an infant not to be denied [these benefits], who being but just born has done no sin, except that, by being descended from Adam in the flesh, he has contracted by birth the contagion of the ancient death.²²

b) In examining the positive teaching of the Fathers, it will be well to consider (α) the Western Fathers apart from (β) the Eastern. Pelagianism was an occidental growth and was almost entirely extirpated by the Latins, notably St. Augustine. The Eastern Fathers, in view of the errors of the Gnostics and Origenists, which flourished mainly in the Orient, and for fear of encouraging such false beliefs as that in the existence of an absolutely evil principle, were accustomed to speak of original sin with caution and reserve.

α) As for the pre-Augustinian period, St. Augustine²³ himself calls upon antiquity as bearing witness against the Pelagians. “Non ego finxi originale peccatum, quod catholica fides credit antiquitus; sed tu [Iuliane], qui negas, sine dubio es novus haereticus” — It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you [he is addressing Julian], who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic.²⁴

Vincent of Lérins wonderingly enquires who before the time of Coelestius ever dreamt of denying the doctrine of original sin.²⁵ Among the most ancient testimonies is that of Tertullian, who in his favorite legal phraseology writes: “Omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur; peccatrix autem immunda recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate.”²⁶

β) The belief of the Oriental Christians could not be substantially different from that of their western brethren, because the churches of the East and West at that time conjointly constituted the one true Church of Christ. In matter of fact, Irenaeus, who belonged to the East both with regard to birth and training, gives expression to the primitive faith when he writes: “Deum in primo quidem Adam offendimus (προσωκείψαμεν), non facientes eius praeceptum; in secundo autem Adam reconciliati sumus. … Neque enim alteri cuidam eramus debitores, cuius praeceptum transgressi fueramus ab initio” — In the first Adam we offended God by disobeying His command; but in the second Adam we were reconciled. … For to no one else were we indebted for having transgressed His precept in the beginning.²⁷ St. Athanasius tersely declares: “In that Adam sinned, death entered the world.”²⁸ And St. Basil²⁹: “Because we did not abstain, we were expelled from Paradise.”³⁰

The Pelagians made desperate efforts to claim at least one of the Greek Fathers in favor of their view. Bishop Julian of Eclanum repeatedly appeals to the authority of the “great John of Constantinople.”³¹ Did St. Chrysostom ignore, nay even oppose, the doctrine of original sin?³² St. Augustine triumphantly defended him against this charge. In descanting on the effects of Baptism St. Chrysostom says: “In the laver of regeneration grace touches the soul and eradicates the sin which has taken root in it.”³³ But what does he mean when he writes in another of his works: “Ideo etiam infantes (τὰ παιδία) baptizamus, licet peccata³⁴ non habeant (καίτοι ἁμαρτήματα οὐκ ἔχοντα)” — Therefore do we also baptize little children, although they have no sins. Augustine rightly explains that Chrysostom meant actual sins: “Intellige propria [scil. peccata] et nulla contentio est. At inquies: Cur non ipse addidit propria? Cur, putamus, nisi quia disputans in catholica ecclesia non se aliter intelligi arbitrabatur? Tali quaestione nullis pulsabatur, vobis nondum litigantibus securius loquebatur.”³⁵ Elsewhere Chrysostom positively asserts the existence of original sin. Thus he says in his homilies on the Book of Genesis: “Christ appeared only once; he found our paternal note of indebtedness, which Adam had written (εὗρεν ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον πατρῷον, ὅ ἔγραψεν ὁ Ἀδάμ); for it was he [Adam] who laid the foundation of the debt (τοῦ χρέους) which we have increased by subsequent [i.e., personal] sins.”³⁶ Julian further insisted that, according to St. Chrysostom, St. Paul in employing the word “sin” merely meant the penalty of bodily death. In his commentary on Rom. V, 19 the Saint says: “What does the term ‘sinner’ mean here? It seems to me that it means one who has incurred a penalty and is condemned to death.”³⁷ But the context shows that Chrysostom merely wishes to deny that all men became personal sinners through the sin of Adam. For in the same homily from which we have quoted he clearly admits the existence of habitual sin: “We have received out of that grace not only so much as was needed to take away the sin, but much more. For we were freed from the penalty, cast off all injustice, and re-arose as men newly-born, after the old man had been buried. … All this Paul terms a superabundance of grace, intimating that we have not only received a medicine adapted to the hurt, but health and beauty. … For Christ hath paid so much more than we owed. … Therefore, O man, doubt not if thou seest the richness of so many graces, and ask not in what manner that spark of death and sin was quenched, since a whole ocean of graces was poured out upon it.”³⁸ St. Augustine was therefore perfectly justified in addressing Julian in such harsh words as these: “Itane ista verba S. Ioannis Episcopi audes tamquam e contrario tot taliumque sententiis collegarum eius opponere, eumque ab illorum concordissima societate seiungere et eis adversarium constituere? Absit, absit hoc nudum de tanto viro credere aut dicere. Absit, inquam, ut Constantinopolitanus Ioannes de baptismate parvulorum eorumque a paterno chirographo liberatione per Christum tot ac tantis coepiscopis suis, maximeque Romano Innocentio, Carthaginiensi Cypriano, Cappadoci Basilio, Nasianseno Gregorio, Gallo Hilario, Mediolanensi resistat Ambrosio. … Hoc [dogma] sensit, hoc credidit, hoc docuit et Ioannes.”³⁹

It must be admitted, however, that St. Chrysostom’s interpretation does not coincide exactly with the ideas of Augustine on the nature of original sin. He frequently repeats that the consequences or penalties of the first sin affected not only our first parents, but also their descendants, but he does not say that the sin itself was inherited by their posterity and is inherent in their nature. In general, to appreciate the homiletic teaching of Chrysostom apropos of sin it is well to remember that he had in mind Manichaean adversaries with their denial of free-will and their doctrine of physically irresistible concupiscence, an error that cut away the foundations of all morality, and one which he opposed with all his might.⁴⁰

Notes

Readings

Greg. de Valentia, Controv. de Peccato Originali. Bellarmine, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, l. 3 sqq. Mariano a Novana, O. Cap., De Originaria Lapsi Hominis Conditione, Parisi 1882. Simar, Die Theologie des hl. Paulus, 2nd ed., pp. 30 sqq., Freiburg 1883. A. Scher, De Universali Propagatione Originalis Culpae, Romae 1895. Bossuet, Défense de la Tradition et des Saints Pères, VIII, 2 sqq. Baur, Das manichäische Religionssystem, Tübingen 1831. Mandernach, Geschichte des Priscillianismus, Trier 1851. Klasen, Innere Entwicklung des Pelagianismus, Freiburg 1882. The Anti-Pelagian Works of Saint Augustine, Translated by Peter Holmes et al., Vol. I, Preface, Edinburgh 1872. (The documents which relate to the Pelagian controversy will be found in an appendix to St. Augustine’s works edited by the congregation of St. Maur. For a full bibliography of Pelagianism consult Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 504 sq., Freiburg and St. Louis 1908.) Möhler, Symbolism, ch. 2 sqq., 5th English ed., London 1906. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd ed., Vol. II, Freiburg 1875. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., Vol. II, 56 sqq., Freiburg 1895. F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, Cambridge 1903. S. Harent, art. “Original Sin,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI. MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. I, 4th ed., New York 1891. P. M. Northcote, The Curse of Adam, London 1915.

Note on this transcription: this article carries the book’s densest run of New Testament Greek (the extended exegesis of Romans V) alongside extensive conciliar Latin; the Greek was reconstructed with good confidence throughout since Pohle glosses nearly every phrase in English immediately alongside it. Footnote 24, which cites Augustine’s Contra Iulianum Pelagianum, appeared to duplicate part of footnote 23’s citation in the scan; both citations are given together there rather than guessing which one is the OCR artifact.