Chapter 1: That by Adam's Sin and Falling Away, Mankind Became Accursed and Did Degenerate from His First Estate, Wherein Is Treated of Original Sin

Not without cause has the knowledge of himself been in the old proverb so much commended to man. For if it be thought a shame to be ignorant of all things that pertain to the course of man's life, then much more shameful is the not knowing of ourselves, whereby it comes to pass, that in taking counsel of any thing necessary, we be miserably dazzled, indeed altogether blinded. But how much more profitable this lesson is, so much more diligently must we take heed, that we do not disorderly use it, as we see some of the philosophers have done. For they in exhorting man to know himself, do withal appoint this to be the end, why he should know himself, that he should not be ignorant of his own dignity and excellence: and nothing else do they will him to behold in himself, but that whereby he may swell with vain confidence, and be puffed up with pride. But the knowledge of ourselves, first stands in this point, that considering what was given us in creation, and how bountifully God continues his gracious favor toward us, we may know how great had been the excellence of our nature, if it had continued uncorrupted: and we may withal think upon this, that there is nothing in us of our own, but that we have as gotten by borrowing all that God has bestowed upon us, that we may always hang upon him. Then, that we call to mind our miserable estate after the fall of Adam, the feeling whereof may throw down all glorying and trust of ourselves, overwhelm us with shame and truly humble us. For as God at the beginning fashioned us like his own image, to the end to raise up our minds both to the study of virtue and to the meditation of eternal life, so lest the so great nobleness of our kind, which makes us different from brute beasts, should be drowned with our slothfulness, it is good for us to know, that we are therefore endowed with [illegible] and understanding, that in keeping a holy and honest life, we should [reconstructed: proceed] on forward to the appointed end of blessed immortality. [illegible] first dignity cannot come in our mind, but by and by on the other [illegible] heavy sight of our filthiness and shame does thrust itself in [illegible] since we in the person of the first man are fallen from our [illegible] estate, whereupon grows the hatred and loathing of ourselves [illegible] true humility, and there is kindled a new desire to seek for God, in whom every one of us may recover those good things, whereof we are found altogether void and empty.

This thing surely the truth of God appoints to be sought in examining of ourselves, I mean, it requires such a knowledge as may both call us away from all confidence of our own power, and making us destitute of all matter to glory upon, may bring us to submission. Which rule it behooves us to keep, if we will attain to the true mark both of right knowledge and well-doing. Neither yet am I ignorant how much more pleasant is that other opinion that allures us rather to consider our good things, than to look upon our miserable neediness and dishonor, which ought to overwhelm us with shame. For there is nothing that man's nature more covets, than to be stroked with flattery: and therefore when he hears the gifts that are in him to be magnified, he leans to that side with overmuch lightness of belief: whereby it is so much less to be marveled, that herein the greatest part of men have perniciously erred. For since there is naturally planted in all mortal men a more than blind love of themselves, they do most willingly persuade themselves, that there is nothing in them that they ought worthily to hate. So without any maintenance of other, this most vain opinion does each where get credit, that man is abundantly sufficient of himself to make himself live well and blessedly. But if there be any that are content to think more modestly, however they grant somewhat to God, lest they should seem arrogantly to take all to themselves, yet they so part it, that the principal matter of glory and confidence always remains with themselves. Now if there come talk, that with her allurements tickles the pride that already of itself itches within the bones, there is nothing that may more delight them. Therefore as any has with his extolling most favorably advanced the excellence of man's nature, so has he been accepted with the well-liking rejoicing in manner of all ages. But whatever such commendation there be of man's excellence that teaches man to rest in himself, it does nothing but delight with that her sweetness, and indeed so deceives, that it brings to most wretched destruction all them that assent to it. For to what purpose avails it for us, standing upon all vain confidence to devise, appoint, attempt and go about those things that we think to be for our behoof, and in our first beginning of enterprise to be forsaken and destitute of sound understanding and true strength, and yet to go on boldly till we fall down into destruction? But it cannot otherwise happen to them that have trust that they can do anything by their own power. Therefore if any man give heed to such teachers that hold us in considering only our own good things, he shall not profit in learning to know himself, but shall be carried violently away into the worst kind of ignorance.

Therefore, whereas in this point the truth of God does agree with the common natural meaning of all men, that the second part of wisdom consists in the knowledge of ourselves, yet in the very manner of knowing there is much disagreement. For by the judgment of the flesh, a man thinks that he has then well searched himself, when trusting upon his own understanding and integrity, he takes boldness and encourages himself to doing the duties of virtue and bidding battle to vices, travels with all his study to bend himself to that which is comely and honest. But he that looks upon and tries himself by the rule of God's judgment, finds nothing that may raise up his mind to good confidence: and the more inwardly that he has examined himself, the more he is discouraged, till being altogether stripped of all confidence, he leaves to himself nothing toward the well ordering of his life. And yet would not God have us to forget the first nobility that he gave to our father Adam, which ought of good right to awaken us to the study of righteousness and goodness. For we cannot consider either our own first estate, or to what end we are created, but we shall be pricked forward to study upon immortality, and to desire the kingdom of God. But that consideration is so far from putting us in courage, that rather discouraging us, it throws us down to humbleness. For what is that first estate of ours? Even that from which we are [reconstructed: fallen]. What is that end of our creation? Even the same from which we are altogether turned away: so that loathing our own miserable estate, we may groan for sorrow, and in groaning may also sigh for the loss of that dignity. But now when we say that man ought to behold nothing in himself that may make him of bold courage, we mean that there is nothing in him upon confidence whereof he ought to be proud. Therefore, if any would hear what knowledge man ought to have of himself, let us thus divide it, that first he consider to what end he is created, and endowed with gifts that are not to be despised, by which thought he may be stirred up to the meditation of the honoring of God and of the life to come. Then let him weigh his own strength, or rather needy want of strength, by perceiving whereof he may lie in extreme confusion, as one utterly brought to nothing. The first of these considerations tends to this end, that he may know what is his duty: and the other, how much he is able to do toward the performing of it. We will treat of them both, as the order of teaching shall require.

But because it must needs be that it was not a light negligence, but a detestable wicked act which God so severely punished, we must consider the very form of the same in the fall of Adam, that kindled the horrible vengeance of God upon all mankind. It is a childish opinion that has commonly been received, concerning the intemperance of gluttony, as though the sum and head of all virtues consisted in the forbearing of one only fruit, when there flowed on every side store of all sorts of delicacies that were to be desired, and when in that blessed fruitfulness of the earth, there was not only plenty, but also variety to make for pleasure. Therefore we must look further, because the forbidding him [reconstructed: from] the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the trial of obedience, that Adam in obeying might prove that he was willingly subject to the government of God. And the name of the tree itself showed, that the commandment was given for no other end, than [reconstructed: that] he, contented with his own estate, should not with wicked lust venture himself higher. But the promise whereby he was bidden to hope for eternal life, so long as he did not eat of the tree of life, and again the horrible threatening of death as soon as he should taste of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, served to prove and exercise his faith. From this it is not hard to gather by what means Adam provoked the wrath of God against himself. Augustine indeed says not amiss, when he says, that pride was the beginning of all evils. For if ambition had not lifted up man higher than was lawful and than was permitted him, he might have continued in his estate: but we must fetch a more full definition from the manner of the temptation that Moses describes. For since the woman was with the deceit of the Serpent led away by infidelity, now it appears that disobedience was the beginning of the fall. Which thing Paul confirms, teaching that all men were lost by one man's disobedience. But it is withal to be noted, that the first man fell from the subjection of God, for that he not only was taken with the enticements of Satan, but also despising the truth, did turn out of the way to lying. And surely God's word being once despised, all reverence of God is shaken off. Because his majesty does no other ways abide in honor among us, nor the worship of him remain inviolate but while we hang upon his mouth. Therefore infidelity was the root of that falling away. But thereupon arose ambition and pride, to which was adjoined unthankfulness, for that Adam in coveting more than was granted, did irreverently despise the so great liberality of God wherewith he was enriched. And this was a monstrous wickedness, that the son of the earth thought it a small thing that he was made after the likeness of God, unless he might also be made equal with God. If apostasy be a filthy and detestable offense, whereby man withdraws himself from the allegiance of his creator, yes, outrageously shakes off his yoke: then it is but vain to extenuate the sin of Adam. Albeit it was no simple apostasy, but joined with shameful reproaches against God, while they assented to the slanders of Satan wherein he accused God of lying, envy, and niggardly grudging. Finally, infidelity opened the gate to ambition, ambition was the mother of obstinate rebellion, to make men cast away the fear of God, and throw themselves wherever their lust carried them. Therefore Bernard does rightly teach that the gate of salvation is opened to us, when at this day we receive the gospel by our ears: even as by the same windows, when they stood open to Satan, death was let in. For Adam would never have been so bold, as to do against the commandment of God, but for this that he did not believe his word. Truly this was the best bridle for the right keeping of all affections in good order, to think that there is nothing better than to keep righteousness in obeying the commandments of God, and then that the chief end of happy life is to be beloved of him. He therefore being carried away with the blasphemies of the Devil, did (as much as in him lay) extinguish the whole glory of God.

As the spiritual life of Adam was, to abide joined and bound to his Creator, so his alienation from him was the death of his soul. Neither is it a marvel if he, by his falling away, destroyed all his own posterity, who perverted the whole order of nature in Heaven and in Earth. All the creatures do groan, says Paul, being made subject to corruption against their will. If one should ask the cause: no doubt it is for that they bear part of that punishment that man deserved, for whose use they were created. Since then the curse that goes throughout all the parts of the world proceeded from his fault both upward and downward, it is nothing against reason, if it spread abroad into all his offspring. Therefore after the heavenly image in him was defaced, he did not alone suffer this punishment — that in place of wisdom, strength, holiness, truth, and justice (with which ornaments he had been clothed) there came in the most horrible pestilences, blindness, weakness, filthiness, falsehood, and injustice — but also he entangled and drowned his whole offspring in the same miseries. This is the corruption that comes by inheritance, which the old writers called Original sin, meaning by this word sin, the corruption of nature, which before was good and pure. About which matter they have had much contention, because there is nothing further from common reason, than all men to be made guilty for one man's fault, and so the sin to become common. Which seems to have been the cause why the oldest Doctors of the church did but darkly touch this point, or at least did not set it out so plainly as was convenient. And yet that fearfulness could not bring it to pass, but that Pelagius arose, whose profane invention was that Adam sinned only to his own loss, and hurt not his posterity. So through this subtlety, Satan went about by hiding the disease, to make it incurable. But when it was proved by manifest testimony of Scripture, that sin passed from the first man into all his posterity, he brought this cavil, that it passed by imitation, but not by propagation. Therefore good men labored in this point, and above all other Augustine, to show that we are corrupted not by foreign wickedness, but that we bring with us from the womb of our mother a viciousness planted in our begetting, which to deny was most great shamelessness. But the rashness of the Pelagians and Celestians will not seem marvelous to him, who by the writings of that holy man shall perceive, how shameless beasts they were in all other things. Surely it is not doubtfully spoken that David confesses that he was begotten in iniquities, and by his mother conceived in sin. He does not there accuse the sins of his father or mother, but the better to set forth the goodness of God toward him, he begins the confession of his own wickedness at his very begetting. For as much as it is evident that that was not peculiar to David alone, it follows that the common estate of all mankind is noted under his example. All we therefore that descend of unclean seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin, indeed before that we see the light of this life, we are in the sight of God filthy and spotted. For who could give clean of the uncleanness? Not one: as it is in the book of Job.

We hear that the uncleanness of the parents so passes into the children, that all without any exception at their beginning are defiled. But of this defiling we shall not find the beginning, unless we go up to the first parent of all of us, to the wellhead. Thus it is therefore, that Adam was not only the progenitor, but also the root of man's nature, and therefore in his corruption was all mankind: worthily corrupted: which the Apostle makes plain by comparing him and Christ. As (says he) by one man sin entered into the whole world, and death by sin, and so death went over all men, forasmuch as all have sinned: so by the grace of Christ, righteousness and life is restored to us (Romans 5:12). What will the Pelagians here prate? That Adam's sin was spread abroad by imitation? Then, have we no other profit by the righteousness of Christ, but that he is an example set before us to follow? Who can abide such robbery of God's honor? If it be out of question that Christ's righteousness is ours by communication, and thereby life: it follows also, that they both were so lost in Adam, as they are recovered in Christ: and that sin and death so crept in by Adam, as they are abolished by Christ. The words are plain, that many are made righteous by the obedience of Christ, as by the disobedience of Adam they were made sinners: and that therefore between them two is this relation, that Adam wrapping us in his destruction, destroyed us with him, and Christ with his grace restored us to salvation. In so clear light of truth, I think we need not a longer or more laborious proof. So also in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, when he goes about to establish the godly in the trust of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:22), he shows that the life is recovered in Christ that was lost in Adam. He that pronounces, that we all are dead in Adam, does also therewith plainly testify, that we were infected with the filth of sin. For damnation could not reach to them that were touched with no guiltiness of iniquity. But it can be no way plainer understood what he means, than by relation of the other member of the sentence, where he teaches that hope of life is restored in Christ. But it is well enough known that the same is done no other way than when by marvelous manner of communicating, Christ pours into us the force of his righteousness (Romans 8:10). As it is written in another place, that the spirit is life to us, for righteousness' sake. Therefore we may not otherwise expound that which is said that we are dead in Adam but thus, that he in sinning did not only purchase mischief and ruin to himself, but also throw down our nature headlong into like destruction. And that not only to the corruption of himself, which pertains nothing to us, but because he infected all his seed with the same corruption into which he was fallen. For otherwise that saying of Paul could not stand true, that all are by nature the sons of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), if they were not already accursed in the womb. And it is easily gathered, that nature is there meant not such as it was created by God, but such as it was corrupted in Adam. For it were not convenient, that God should be made the author of death. Adam therefore so corrupted himself, that the infection passed from him into all his offspring. And the heavenly Judge himself, Christ, does also plainly enough pronounce, that all are born evil and corrupted, where he teaches, that whatever is born of flesh, is flesh (John 3:6), and that therefore the gate of life is closed against all men, until they are begotten again.

Neither for the understanding thereof is any curious disputation needful, which not a little cumbered the old writers, whether the soul of the son does proceed by derivation from the soul of the father, because in it the infection principally rests. We must be content with this, that such gifts as it pleased the Lord to have bestowed upon the nature of man, he left them with Adam, and therefore when Adam lost them after he had received them, he lost them not only from himself, but also from us all. Who shall be careful of a conveyance from soul to soul, when he shall hear that Adam received these ornaments which he lost, no less for us than for himself? That they were not given to one man alone, but assigned to the whole nature of man? Therefore it is not against reason, if he being spoiled, nature be left naked and poor: if he being infected with sin, the infection creeps into nature. Therefore from a rotten root arose up rotten branches, which sent their rottenness into the other twigs that sprung out of them. For so were the children corrupted in the father, that they also were infective to their children: that is to say, so was the beginning of corruption in Adam, that by continual flowing from one to another, it is conveyed from the ancestors into the posterity. For the infection has not her cause in the substance of the flesh or of the soul, but because it was so ordained of God, that such gifts as he had given to the first man, man should both have them, and lose them as well for himself as for his. As for this that the Pelagians do cavil, that it is not likely that the children do take corruption from godly parents, since they ought rather to be sanctified by their cleanness, that is easily confuted. For they descend not of their spiritual regeneration, but of their carnal generation. Therefore, as Augustine says, whether the unbeliever be condemned as guilty, and the believer quit as innocent, they both do beget not innocents, but guilty, because they beget of the corrupted nature. Now whereas they do in manner partake of the parents' holiness, that is the special blessing of the people of God, which proves not but that the first and universal curse of mankind went before. For of nature is guiltiness, and sanctification is of supernatural grace.

And to the end that these things be not spoken of a thing uncertain and unknown, let us define Original sin. But yet I mean not to examine all the definitions that are made by writers, but I will bring forth one only, which I think to be most agreeable with truth. Original sin therefore seems to be the inheritably descending perverseness and corruption of our nature, poured abroad into all the parts of the soul, which first makes us guilty of the wrath of God, and then also brings forth these works in us which the Scripture calls the works of the flesh: and that is it properly that Paul oftentimes calls Sin. And these works that arise out of it, as are adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, banquetings, after the same manner he calls the fruits of sin, albeit they are likewise called sins both commonly in the Scripture and also by the same Paul himself. Therefore these two things are distinctly to be noted: that is, that being so in all parts of our nature corrupted and perverted, we are now even for such corruption only held worthily damned and convicted before God, to whom is nothing acceptable but righteousness, innocence and purity. And yet is not that bond in respect of another's fault. For where it is said, that by the sin of Adam we are made subject to the judgment of God, it is not so to be taken, as if we innocent and undeserving did bear the blame of his fault. But because by his offending we are all clothed with the curse, therefore it is said that he has bound us. Nevertheless, from him not the punishment only came upon us, but also the infection distilled from him, abides in us, to which the punishment is justly due. Therefore however Augustine does oftentimes call it another's sin, (to show the more plainly, that it is conveyed into us by propagation) yet does he also affirm withal that it is proper to every one. And the Apostle himself expressly witnesses, that therefore death came upon all men, because all men have sinned, and are wrapped in Original sin, and defiled with the spots thereof. And therefore the very infants themselves, while they bring with them their own damnation from their mother's womb, are bound, not by another's, but by their own fault. For though they have not as yet brought forth the fruits of their own [reconstructed: iniquity], yet they have the seed thereof enclosed within them: indeed their whole nature is a certain seed of Sin: therefore it can not be but hateful and abominable to God. Therefore follows, that [reconstructed: it is] properly accounted sin before God: for there could be no [reconstructed: guiltiness] without sin. The other point is, that this perverseness never ceases in us, but continually brings forth new fruits, even the same works of the flesh that we have before described: like as a burning furnace blows out flame and sparks, or as a spring does without ceasing cast out water. Therefore they which have defined Original sin, to be a lacking of Original righteousness which ought to have been in us, although in deed they comprehend all that is in the thing itself: yet they have not fully enough expressed the force and efficacy thereof. For our nature is not only bare and empty of goodness, but also is so plenteous and fruitful of all evils, that it can not be idle. They that have said, that it is a concupiscence have used a word not very far from the matter, if this were added, which is not granted by the most part, that whatever is in man, even from the understanding to the will, from the soul to the flesh, is corrupted and stuffed full with this concupiscence: or, to end it more briefly, that whole man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence.

Therefore, I have said that all the parts of the soul are possessed of sin, since Adam fell away from the fountain of righteousness. For not only the inferior appetite allured him, but wicked impiety possessed the very castle of his mind, and pride pierced to the innermost part of his heart. So that it is a fond and foolish thing, to restrain the corruption that proceeded from there, only to the sensual motions as they call them, or to call it a certain nurture that allures, stirs and draws to sin only that part, which among them is called Sensuality. Wherein Peter Lombard has disclosed his gross ignorance, which seeking and searching for the place of it, says that it is in the flesh, as Paul witnesses, not properly indeed, but because it more appears in the flesh, as though Paul did mean only a part of the soul, and not the whole nature which is in comparison set against supernatural grace. And Paul there takes away all doubt: teaching that corruption rests not in one part alone, but that nothing is pure and clean from the deadly infection thereof. For treating of corrupted nature, he does not only condemn the inordinate motions of appetites that appear, but specially labors to prove that the understanding mind is subject to blindness, and the heart to perverseness. And the same third chapter to the Romans is nothing else but a description of original sin. That appears more plainly by the renewing. For the spirit which is compared with the old man and the flesh, does not only signify the grace whereby the inferior or sensual part of the soul is amended, but also contains a full reformation of all the parts. And therefore Paul does command, not only that our gross appetites be brought to nothing, but also that we ourselves be renewed in the spirit of our mind, as likewise in another place he bids us to be transformed in newness of mind. Therefore follows, that the same part, wherein most of all shines the excellence and nobility of the soul, is not only wounded, but also so corrupted, that it needs not only to be healed, but in manner to put on a new nature. How far sin possesses both the understanding mind and the heart, we will see hereafter. Here I only purposed briefly to touch that the whole man from the head to the foot is so overwhelmed as with an overflowing of water, that no part of him is left from sin, and that therefore whatever proceeds from him is accounted for sin, as Paul says, that all the affections of the flesh or thoughts, are enmities against God, and therefore death.

Now let them go, that presume to make God the author of their sins, because we say that men are naturally sinful. They do wrongfully seek the work of God in their own filthiness, which they ought rather to have sought in the nature of Adam, while it was yet sound and uncorrupted. Therefore our destruction comes of the fault of our own flesh, and not of God, inasmuch as we perished by no other means but by this, that we degenerated from our first estate. But yet let not any man here murmur and say, that God might have better foreseen for our salvation, if he had provided that Adam should not have fallen. For this objection both is to be abhorred by all godly minds, for the too much presumptuous curiosity of it, and also pertains to the secret of predestination which shall after be treated of in place convenient. Therefore let us remember that our fall is to be imputed to the corruption of nature, that we accuse not God himself the author of nature. True indeed it is, that the same deadly wound sticks fast in nature: but it is much material to know, whether it came into nature from elsewhere, or from the beginning has rested in it. But it is evident that the wound was given by sin, therefore there is no cause why we should complain but of ourselves: which thing the Scripture has diligently noted. For Ecclesiastes says: This have I found, that God has made man righteous, but they have sought many inventions (Ecclesiastes 7:13). It appears that the destruction of man is to be imputed only to himself, inasmuch as having gotten uprightness by the goodness of God, he by his own madness is fallen into vanity.

We say therefore, that man is corrupted with natural faultiness, but such as proceeded not from nature. We deny that it proceeded from nature, to make appear that it is rather a quality come from some other thing, which has happened to man, than a substantial property that has been put into him from the beginning. Yet we call it natural, that no man should think that every man gets it by evil custom, whereas it holds all men bound by inheritable descending right. And this we do not of our own heads without authority. For, for the same cause the Apostle teaches that we are all by nature the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). How could God, whom all his meanest works do please, be wrathful against the noblest of all his creatures? But he is rather wrathful against the corruption of his work, than against his work itself. Therefore if, for that man's nature is corrupted, man is not unfitly said to be by nature abominable to God, it shall be also not unaptly called naturally perverse and corrupted. As Augustine fears not in respect of nature corrupted, to call the sins natural, which do necessarily reign in our flesh where the grace of God is absent. So vanishes away the foolish trifling device of the Manichees, which when they imagined an evilness having substance in man, presumed to forge for him a new creator, lest they should seem to assign to the righteous God the cause and beginning of evil.

The ancient proverb urging man to know himself has always been highly regarded, and for good reason. If ignorance of things that concern ordinary human life is considered shameful, then not knowing ourselves is far more shameful — for it leaves us dazzled, even blinded, whenever we face any important decision. But the more profitable this lesson is, the more carefully we must make sure we do not misuse it, as some of the philosophers have done. When they urge men to know themselves, they make this the goal: that a man should be aware of his own dignity and excellence, looking at nothing in himself except what will cause him to swell with vain confidence and be inflated with pride. True self-knowledge, however, begins at a different point. First, by considering what was given to us in creation and how generously God continues His gracious favor toward us, we recognize how great the excellence of our nature would have been had it remained uncorrupted. We also recognize that nothing in us is truly our own — everything we have is borrowed from God, so that we depend entirely on Him. Second, we call to mind our miserable condition after Adam's fall, which throws down all boasting and self-confidence, overwhelms us with shame, and truly humbles us. For just as God originally fashioned us in His own image to lift our minds toward virtue and the meditation of eternal life, we need to know that we are endowed with reason and understanding for the purpose of pressing forward to our appointed goal of blessed immortality — lest the great dignity of our nature, which sets us apart from animals, be swallowed up by our laziness. But no sooner does that original dignity come to mind than the painful sight of our filthiness and shame forces its way in — for in the person of the first man we have fallen from our original estate. From this grows a hatred and loathing of ourselves that is true humility, and from it is kindled a fresh desire to seek God, in whom each of us may recover the good things of which we find ourselves completely empty.

This is indeed what God's truth requires in the examination of ourselves — knowledge that strips away all confidence in our own power, leaves us nothing to boast about, and brings us to submission. We must hold to this rule if we are to reach the true goal of both right knowledge and right living. I am well aware that the other approach is far more attractive — the one that invites us to dwell on our good qualities rather than to face the miserable poverty and disgrace that should overwhelm us with shame. There is nothing human nature desires more than flattery, and when a person hears his gifts praised, he accepts it all far too readily. It is therefore no surprise that most people have gone dangerously astray on this point. Since a more than blind self-love is naturally planted in every person, they convince themselves very willingly that there is nothing in them that deserves to be hated. Without any outside help, this empty opinion spreads everywhere: that man is entirely sufficient in himself to live well and blessedly. Even those who are content to think more modestly — granting something to God so as not to seem arrogantly self-sufficient — still divide things in such a way that the primary share of glory and confidence remains with themselves. And whenever talk comes along that flatters the pride already itching in their bones, nothing could please them more. So the more highly a speaker has praised the excellence of human nature, the more warmly he has been received and celebrated in nearly every age. But whatever praise of human excellence teaches a man to rest in himself does nothing but delight him with its sweetness while it deceives him — leading all who accept it to the most wretched ruin. What good does it do to stand on vain confidence, devising and attempting all sorts of plans for our own benefit, only to find ourselves forsaken and lacking sound understanding and true strength at the very first step — and yet pressing on boldly until we fall into destruction? This is exactly what happens to those who trust they can accomplish anything by their own power. Therefore, anyone who follows teachers who keep him focused only on his own good qualities will not advance in self-knowledge but will be swept violently into the worst kind of ignorance.

So while God's truth agrees with the natural instinct of all people that self-knowledge is a key part of wisdom, there is great disagreement about how that self-knowledge works. By the judgment of the flesh, a person thinks he has examined himself well when, trusting in his own understanding and integrity, he boldly encourages himself to practice virtue, fights against vices, and works hard to shape himself toward what is noble and honorable. But the person who examines himself by the standard of God's judgment finds nothing to build his confidence on. The more honestly he looks inward, the more discouraged he becomes, until he is completely stripped of all confidence and has nothing left on which to base a well-ordered life. And yet God does not want us to forget the original dignity He gave our father Adam — a dignity that should rightly stir us toward righteousness and goodness. For we cannot think about either our original estate or the purpose for which we were created without being pressed forward to pursue immortality and desire the kingdom of God. But that reflection, rather than giving us courage, humbles and brings us low. What was our original estate? The one from which we have fallen. What was the purpose of our creation? The very purpose from which we have completely turned away — so that we might loathe our own miserable condition, groan in sorrow, and in groaning also mourn the loss of that dignity. Now when we say that man should find nothing in himself to give him bold confidence, we mean there is nothing in him on which he should base pride. Therefore, if anyone wants to know what kind of self-knowledge a person should have, let us divide it this way. First, let him consider what he was created for and what gifts he was given — gifts not to be despised — so that this reflection may stir him toward honoring God and toward the life to come. Then let him honestly weigh his own strength — or rather, his desperate lack of strength — so that by recognizing it he may be brought to utter humility, as one who has nothing in himself. The first consideration shows him what his duty is; the second shows him how able he is to carry it out. We will address both in the order that the subject requires.

Since God punished this sin so severely, it could not have been a minor offense — it must have been a detestable wickedness. We must therefore examine the nature of Adam's fall, which kindled God's terrible vengeance upon all mankind. The popular opinion that the sin was merely about overindulgence — as if the highest virtue consisted in refraining from one single fruit, while every other kind of pleasant food was available in abundance in that blessed and fertile garden — is a childish interpretation. We must look deeper. The prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a test of obedience — a means by which Adam could prove, through obeying, that he willingly submitted to God's authority. The very name of the tree indicated that the command was given for no other reason than that Adam, contented with his own estate, should not presumptuously reach for something higher. The promise of eternal life tied to the tree of life, and the fearful warning of death attached to eating from the tree of knowledge, were designed to test and exercise his faith. From all this it is not hard to see what moved Adam to provoke God's wrath against himself. Augustine is right when he says that pride was the beginning of all evil. If ambition had not lifted man beyond what was lawful and permitted, he could have remained in his estate. But we need a fuller account by looking at the nature of the temptation as Moses describes it. Since the woman was led astray through the serpent's deception and fell into unbelief, it is clear that disobedience was the beginning of the fall. Paul confirms this, teaching that all people were lost through one man's disobedience. It must also be noted that the first man fell from submission to God not only because he was lured by Satan, but also because he despised the truth and turned to lies. Once God's word is despised, all reverence for God collapses — for His majesty is honored among us only as long as we hang upon His word. Unbelief, then, was the root of the fall. From unbelief arose ambition and pride, accompanied by ingratitude — for Adam, in craving more than was given to him, irreverently despised the great generosity with which God had enriched him. It was a monstrous wickedness that this creature of earth thought it too little to be made in the likeness of God unless he could also be made equal to God. If apostasy is a filthy and detestable offense — the act by which man withdraws from his Creator's authority and furiously throws off His yoke — then there is no point in minimizing Adam's sin. And it was no simple apostasy either, but was combined with shameful insults against God, since Adam and Eve agreed with Satan's slanders in which he accused God of lying, envy, and selfish withholding. In the end, unbelief opened the door to ambition, ambition gave birth to stubborn rebellion, and rebellion caused men to cast away the fear of God and throw themselves wherever their desires led them. Bernard is therefore right to teach that the gate of salvation is opened to us today when we receive the gospel through our ears — just as through those same windows, when they were opened to Satan, death entered. Adam would never have dared to act against God's command had he not first stopped believing God's word. The surest way to keep all desires in proper order is this: to believe that nothing is better than to remain righteous by obeying God's commands, and that the highest end of a blessed life is to be loved by Him. By going along with the devil's lies, Adam did all he could to extinguish the glory of God.

Just as Adam's spiritual life consisted in remaining united and bound to his Creator, so his separation from God was the death of his soul. It is no wonder that, through his fall, he destroyed all his posterity — for he had overturned the entire order of nature both in heaven and on earth. All creation groans, Paul says, having been subjected to corruption against its will. If one asks the reason, the answer is clear: creation shares in the punishment deserved by man, for whose sake it was made. Since the curse that spreads through all parts of the world flowed outward from Adam's sin, it is entirely reasonable that it also spread to all his descendants. When the heavenly image in Adam was defaced, he did not suffer this penalty alone. In place of wisdom, strength, holiness, truth, and righteousness — the gifts with which he had been clothed — came a terrible plague of blindness, weakness, filthiness, falsehood, and injustice. He also dragged his entire offspring into the same ruin. This inherited corruption is what the early writers called original sin, using the word sin to mean the corruption of a nature that had previously been good and pure. There has been much debate about this, because nothing is further from common sense than the idea that all people are made guilty on account of one man's sin, and that this sin becomes universal. This may be why the earliest church teachers touched on this point only briefly, or at least not as clearly as they should have. But even their caution could not prevent the rise of Pelagius, whose godless invention was that Adam's sin harmed only himself and did not affect his descendants. Through this sleight of hand, Satan sought to make the disease incurable by concealing it. When it was proven by clear Scripture testimony that sin passed from the first man to all his descendants, Pelagius shifted his argument, claiming that sin spread through imitation rather than through natural propagation. Good men worked hard to refute this — above all Augustine — showing that we are corrupted not by someone else's wickedness imported from outside, but that we bring a vice planted in our very begetting from our mother's womb. To deny this was the height of shamelessness. But the recklessness of the Pelagians and Celestians will not surprise anyone who has read Augustine's writings and seen what shameless creatures they were in every other matter as well. David's confession is unmistakably clear: he declares that he was conceived in iniquity and that his mother bore him in sin. He is not there accusing his father or mother of specific sins. Rather, in order to magnify God's grace toward him, he traces his own sinfulness back to his very conception. Since it is obvious that this was not unique to David, it follows that the common condition of all mankind is described through his example. All of us who descend from unclean seed are born infected with the contagion of sin — indeed, before we even see the light of this life, we are filthy and stained in God's sight. As the book of Job says: 'Who can bring what is clean from what is unclean? No one.'

The uncleanness of parents passes into their children in such a way that all human beings without exception are defiled from the very beginning. But we cannot find the origin of this defilement unless we trace it back to the first parent of us all. Adam was not only the ancestor of human nature but also its root, and therefore all of mankind was rightly corrupted in his corruption. The apostle makes this plain by comparing Adam and Christ: 'Just as through one man sin entered into the whole world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned — so by the grace of Christ, righteousness and life are restored to us' (Romans 5:12). What will the Pelagians say here? That Adam's sin spread by imitation? If so, then the only benefit we receive from Christ's righteousness is that He is set before us as an example to follow. Who could accept such a robbery of God's honor? If it is beyond question that Christ's righteousness becomes ours through a real sharing in it, and that by it we have life, then it equally follows that both righteousness and life were so lost in Adam that they had to be recovered in Christ — and that sin and death crept in through Adam in the same real way that they are abolished through Christ. The words are plain: many are made righteous through Christ's obedience, just as through Adam's disobedience they were made sinners. The relationship between the two is clear: Adam by his ruin dragged us down with him, and Christ by His grace restored us to salvation. In so clear a light of truth, a longer or more laborious proof is unnecessary. Paul makes the same point in his first letter to the Corinthians, when establishing the faithful in their confidence in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:22): he shows that the life lost in Adam is recovered in Christ. When he declares that we all die in Adam, he also plainly testifies that we were infected with the pollution of sin. Condemnation could not reach those who had no guilt at all. But his meaning is made clearest by the other half of the sentence, where he teaches that hope of life is restored in Christ — and this happens only through the marvelous way in which Christ pours the power of His righteousness into us (Romans 8:10), as it is written elsewhere that 'the Spirit is life because of righteousness.' We must therefore interpret 'we are dead in Adam' as meaning this: Adam, by sinning, did not only bring ruin on himself but plunged human nature headlong into the same destruction. He did so not merely for himself, but because he infected all his descendants with the same corruption into which he had fallen. Otherwise Paul's statement could not hold true: that all are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), if they were not already under the curse from the womb. It is easy to see that 'nature' there refers not to nature as God created it, but to nature as it was corrupted in Adam. For it would be unfitting to make God the author of death. Adam corrupted himself so thoroughly that the infection passed from him to all his offspring. And the heavenly Judge Himself, Christ, declares plainly enough that all are born evil and corrupted, when He teaches that whatever is born of flesh is flesh (John 3:6), and that therefore the gate of life is closed to all until they are born again.

We do not need the intricate disputation that troubled the early writers so much — namely, whether the soul of a child derives from the soul of its father, because the infection is thought to reside primarily in the soul. It is enough to hold this: the gifts that God was pleased to bestow on human nature, He deposited in Adam — and so when Adam lost them after receiving them, he lost them not only for himself but for all of us. Why search for some special means of transmission from soul to soul, when we learn that Adam received these gifts not for himself alone but for all of us, and that they were assigned not to one individual but to the whole of human nature? It is entirely reasonable, then, that when he was stripped of them, human nature was left naked and empty — and that when he was infected with sin, the infection spread to all of nature. From a rotten root grew rotten branches, which passed their rottenness on to the shoots that sprang from them. The children were thus corrupted in the father, and they in turn passed that corruption to their own children — the corruption beginning in Adam and flowing continuously from generation to generation down to all his descendants. The infection does not originate in the substance of the flesh or the soul as such, but in God's arrangement by which the gifts He gave to the first man were to be held and either preserved or forfeited by him on behalf of all who came from him. As for the Pelagian objection — that it is unlikely children would inherit corruption from godly parents, since they should rather be sanctified by their parents' purity — it is easily answered. Children do not descend from their parents' spiritual regeneration but from their physical generation. Therefore, as Augustine says, whether an unbeliever is condemned as guilty and a believer is acquitted as innocent, both generate not innocent children but guilty ones, because they generate from a corrupted nature. The fact that children of believers share in a kind of parental holiness is a special blessing of God's covenant people — it does not disprove that the original and universal curse of mankind came first. Guilt belongs to nature; sanctification belongs to supernatural grace.

To prevent any vagueness in these statements, let us define original sin. I do not intend to examine all the definitions offered by various writers, but I will present the one that I believe best accords with the truth. Original sin is the inherited corruption and perversity of our nature, spread through every part of the soul, which first makes us guilty before God's wrath and then produces in us what Scripture calls the works of the flesh. This is what Paul regularly calls 'sin.' The acts that flow from it — such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, and drunkenness — he calls the fruits of sin, though both Scripture and Paul himself also commonly refer to these acts as sins as well. Two things must be clearly distinguished here. First, we are so thoroughly corrupted and perverted in every part of our nature that we are rightly condemned and convicted before God on account of that corruption alone — for God accepts nothing but righteousness, innocence, and purity. Yet this condemnation is not merely for someone else's fault. When it is said that through Adam's sin we are brought under God's judgment, the meaning is not that we, as innocent and undeserving, are blamed for his wrongdoing. Rather, because through his offense we are all clothed in the curse, he is said to have bound us. And from him came not only the punishment but also the infection itself, which remains in us and rightly deserves that punishment. So while Augustine sometimes calls original sin 'another's sin' — to make it clearer that it is transmitted through natural descent — he also affirms that it is properly each person's own. And the apostle himself expressly testifies that death spread to all people because all have sinned and are wrapped in original sin and defiled by its stain. Therefore even infants, who bring their own condemnation from their mother's womb, are bound not by another's fault but by their own. Although they have not yet produced the actual fruits of iniquity, they carry the seed of it within them — indeed, their entire nature is a seed of sin, and therefore cannot be anything but hateful and abominable to God. It follows that it is rightly counted as sin before God, for there can be no guilt without sin. The second point is this: this perversity never stops in us but constantly produces new fruit — the very works of the flesh already described — like a blazing furnace that continually throws out flame and sparks, or a spring that never stops flowing. Those who have defined original sin as the absence of the original righteousness that ought to have been in us do capture the substance of the matter, but they have not fully expressed its power and force. Our nature is not merely empty and stripped of goodness — it is also so abundantly and productively full of every kind of evil that it cannot be idle. Those who have called it concupiscence have used a word that is not far off the mark — if only most of them would add what they generally deny: that everything in man, from the mind to the will, from the soul to the flesh, is corrupted and saturated with this concupiscence. Or, to say it even more briefly: the whole person is, in himself, nothing other than concupiscence.

I have said, then, that sin has taken possession of all the parts of the soul since Adam fell away from the fountain of righteousness. It was not only his lower appetites that were lured into sin — wicked ungodliness seized the very citadel of his mind, and pride pierced to the very depths of his heart. It is therefore foolish and shortsighted to limit the corruption flowing from this to what they call sensual impulses, or to describe it as merely a stimulus that tempts and draws only the part they call 'sensuality.' In this, Peter Lombard revealed his deep ignorance when, searching for the seat of original sin, he located it in the flesh on the basis of Paul's testimony — yet not properly, he said, but only because it is most visible in the flesh. As if Paul meant only one part of the soul and not the whole human nature set in contrast to supernatural grace. Paul himself removes all doubt by teaching that the corruption does not reside in one part alone but that nothing is free from its deadly infection. When he treats of corrupted nature, he does not only condemn the visible disordered impulses of appetite but especially labors to show that the mind is subject to blindness and the heart to wickedness. And Romans 3 is nothing other than a description of original sin. This is made even clearer by looking at renewal. The 'spirit,' which is set in contrast to the old man and the flesh, does not signify only the grace by which the lower or sensual part of the soul is corrected, but includes a full reformation of all the parts. Paul therefore commands not only that our gross appetites be put to death, but that we ourselves be renewed in the spirit of our mind — and in another place he calls us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. It follows that the very part in which the excellence and nobility of the soul shines most brightly is not merely wounded but so corrupted that it needs not merely healing but a wholly new nature. How thoroughly sin possesses both the mind and the heart will be examined later. Here I merely want to note briefly that the whole person, from head to foot, is so completely submerged in sin — as if overwhelmed by a flood — that no part is left untouched. Therefore, everything that proceeds from a person is counted as sin, as Paul says: all the affections of the flesh, all its thoughts, are hostility against God, and therefore death.

Let those go who presume to make God the author of their sins because we say that men are naturally sinful. They wrongly seek the work of God in their own filthiness, when they should instead be looking at Adam's nature as it was before it became corrupted. Our destruction comes from the fault of our own flesh, not from God — we perished for no other reason than that we fell away from our original estate. Let no one grumble and say that God could have better provided for our salvation by ensuring that Adam did not fall. That objection is something all godly minds should recoil from as far too presumptuous, and it also touches the secret of predestination, which will be addressed in its proper place later. Let us hold, then, that our fall is to be attributed to the corruption of our nature — not to God, who is nature's author. It is true that a deadly wound has lodged itself in our nature. But it matters greatly whether that wound came from outside at some later point, or whether it was there from the beginning. The evidence is clear: the wound was inflicted by sin, and therefore we have no one to blame but ourselves. Scripture has faithfully recorded this truth. Ecclesiastes says: 'This I have found: God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes' (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Man's ruin is therefore to be laid at his own feet — for having received uprightness by God's goodness, he fell into vanity by his own foolishness.

We say, then, that man is corrupted by a natural defect — but one that did not originate in nature. We deny that it originated in nature in order to make clear that it is rather a condition that came upon man from outside than a property built into him from the beginning. Yet we call it natural so that no one thinks each person acquires it merely through bad habits, since in fact it holds all people bound by hereditary right. We are not saying this on our own authority. For this same reason the apostle teaches that we are all by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). How could God, who takes pleasure even in the least of His works, be wrathful against the noblest of all His creatures? He is angry not with His own handiwork but with the corruption of it. Therefore, since man's nature is corrupted, it is not inaccurate to say that man is by nature abominable to God, and it is equally accurate to call him naturally perverse and corrupted. Augustine, for his part, does not hesitate to call the sins that necessarily reign in our flesh — wherever God's grace is absent — natural sins, in view of corrupted nature. With this the foolish invention of the Manichees disappears. When they imagined an evil substance dwelling in man, they were forced to invent a separate evil creator for him, to avoid assigning to the righteous God the cause and origin of evil.