Ij&iU'c/a.s ( PociolpH G. 
Bi t> I icq I o oevko*s — 

1 -Ser 3 
1*7.2 ' 

B j tREV. RUDOLPH G. BANDAS 

SERIES THREE 



B I BL ICAL QUESTIONS 
SERIES I 

L The Book of Books 
II. The Catholic and Protestant 

Bibles 
m . The Bible, the Sole Rule of 

Faith 
IV. Inspiration and Inerrancy 

V. The Historical Books of the 
Bible 

VL The Wisdom Literature of the 
Bible 

VII. Letters and Epistles in the 
Bible 

V m . The Prophetical Literature in 
the Bible 

SERIES n 
I. Stories and Parables in the 

Bible 
II. Types and Figures in the 

Bible 
m . Orations in the Bible 
IV. Places of Worship in the 

Bible 
V. Sacred Persons in the Bible 

VI. Sacred Times and Festivals 
in the Bible 

VII. Religious Sects in the Bible 
VIII. Recent Popes and the Bible 

SERIES III 
I. The Bible and Science 

II. The Bible and Science, Con-
tinued 

IIL Creation and Evolution 
IV. The Origin of Man 
V. The State of Primitive Jus-

tice 
VI. The Fall 

VII. The Fallen State and Science 
v m . Original Sin 

SERIES IV 
I. The Primitive Pair and Its 

Descendants 
II. The Deluge and the Ark 

III. Ill-Fated Cities 
Tower of Babel 
Sodom and Gommorrha 

IV. Esau and Jacob 
V. Exodus from Egypt 

VI. Special Personages and Events 
Josue and the Sun 
Witch of Endor 
Elias and Henoch 
Jonas and the Fish 

VII. Job and the Problem of Evil 
VHI. Old Testament Morality and 

Religion 
SERIES V 

I. The Synoptic Gcapels 
II. St. John's Gospel 

IXL The Two Annunciations 
IV. The Incarnation 
V. Duration of the Hypostatic 

Union 
VI. The Virgin Birth 

VII. "Ever Blessed Virgin" 
V m . The Holy Family 

SERIES VI 
I. The Visitation 

II. The Birth of Christ and the 

Sacred Infancy 
n i . The Magi and the Innocents 
IV. Baptism 

V. The Divinity of Christ 
VI. St. Peter, Head of the Church 

VII. The One True Church 
v m . The Promise of the Eucharist 

SERIES VII 
L The Paschal Supper and the 

Holy EuchariBt 
IE. The Agony and the Betrayal 

of ChriBt 
rn. The Condemnation of Christ 
IV. The Crucifixion 
V. Our Lord Forlorn 

VI. "He Descended Into Hall" 
VII. The Redemption 

v m . The Redemption, Continued 
SERIES VIII 

I. The Angela 
II. The Evil Spirits 

UI. Christ's Knowledge and the 
Last Day 

IV. The Particular Judgment 
V. Heaven and Hell 

VI. Purgatory 
VII. Bodily Resurrection 

v m The End of the World 

20c per copy of each Series; discount on quantity orders. 
Order from Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana. 

Series I of Biblical Questions aims to give the student a general 
acquaintance with the Bible. The Chapters and Discussion Aids are 
constructed in such a way as to oblige the student to page the Bible, 
become acquainted with the arrangement of the Books, and read some 
sections in each Book. 

Series n continues this general discussion about the Bible. 
Series III takes up specific questions in the Old and the New Testa-

ment, and this method will be continued in the subsequent Series. With 
the permission of the Bruce Publishing Company of Milwaukee, some of 

(Continued on fawlde back cover) 



BIBLICAL QUESTIONS 

A Manual for High School and College 
Students and for Young People's and 

Adult Discussion Clubs 

BY 

REV. RUDOLPH G. BANDAS 

Series 111 



Nihil Obstat: 
Rev. George Ziskovsky, S.T.D., L.S.Sc. 

Censor Deputatus 
die 11a Februarii, 1943 

Imprimatur: 
<i> J O A N N E S GREGORIUS M U R R A Y 

Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli 
die 12a Februarii, 1943 

Second Edition 10,000 

Published in U. S. A . 
January 16, 1951 

'by 
Our Sunday Visitor Presc 

Huntington* Indiana 

fiwcMWed 



Table of Contents 
I. The Bible and Science - 5 

II. The Bible and Science, Continued 12 

III. Creation and Evolution —: 21 

IV. The Origin of Man - — - 31 

V. The State of Primitive Justice 42 

VI. The Fall - - - - 54 

VII. The Fallen State and Science ....— 61 

VIII. Original Sin I ----- 6 9 





Chapter I 

The Bible and Science 
Genesis And Science 

The Mosaic account of the origin of the world 
is a popular narrative and not a technical, scientific 
textbook. The purpose of the sacred writer was 
not to teach the physical sciences but the truths 
necessary for salvation. The Bible is a book of 
religion, not a textbook of science. Its main purpose 
is, in the language of Cardinal Baronius, "to teach 
us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens 
go." 

Moses does not describe the complete order 
of creatipn but merely enumerates the things and 
happenings which were best known to the people 
of his time, namely, heaven and earth, light and 
darkness, etc. The enumeration of these common 
things in a vivid manner was intended to impress 
upon the people the fact that they were all created 
by God. Secondly, Moses does not always follow 
a chronological or time order. Thus, from the fact 
that light is said to have been made on the first 
day and the luminaries only on the fourth day, we 
cannot infer that light preceded the formation of 
the sun. The primary purpose of Moses is to show 
that both light and the luminaries have God as their 
Author. Finally, Moses occasionally employs meta-
phorical and anthropomorphic expressions; we must 
not interpret these literally but must strive to attain 
the inner reality which these expressions wish to 
convey. 



6 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

St. Augustine warns the Christian scholar "not 
to make rash assertions or to assert what is not 
known as known." In passages bearing on the nat-
ural sciences which without detriment to faith can 
be interpreted in different ways, he advises us not 
to read hastily our own opinions into Sacred Scrip-
tures and fight for them as if they were the teaching 
of the Bible, nor obstinately defend such opinions 
when they have been proved false, lest we thereby 
expose the Bible to the ridicule of unbelievers (1). 
Another important principle laid down by St. Augus-
tine is that it is not the purpose of Sacred Scripture 
to teach science: "We do not read in the Gospel that 
the Lord said: I send you the Paraclete to teach you 
how the sun and the moon go. He wished to make 
Christians, not mathematicians." <2). 

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, we cannot 
deduce anything certain from Scripture concerning 
the manner and the order of creation. The Angelic 
Doctor tells us that the Church Fathers themselves 
interpreted the first chapters of Genesis in dif-
ferent ways. The manner and the order of creation 
is, consequently, a matter open to free discussion. 
What belongs to the substance of faith is the fact 
that God, as sole cause, created—in beginning of 
time—all things out of nothing. When Moses speaks 
of astronomy, he speaks in a popular and not in 
scientific manner; addressing a rude people, Moses 
accommodated himself to their knowledge and taught 
them only those things that manifestly appear to 
the senses (3). 

(1) Migne, P. L. 34:260. 

(2) Migne, P.L. 42:625. 

(3) In Lib. I I Sent., dist 12 q. I, a. 2. Summa Theologica, I, q. 70, art . 
I ad 3 um. 



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE 7 

The teaching of St. Thomas is confirmed by 
Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus: 
"There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy 
between the theologian and the physicist, as long as 
each confines himself within his own lines, and both 
are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, 'not to make 
rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as 
known.' If dissension should arise between them, 
here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, 
for the theologian: 'Whatever they can really dem-
onstrate to be true of physical nature we must 
show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scrip-
tures; and whatever they assert in their treatises 
which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that 
is, to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well 
as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we 
must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to 
be entirely false. To understand how just is the 
rule here formulated we must remember, first, that 
the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the 
Holy Ghost who spoke by them, did not intend to 
teach men these things (that is to say, the essential 
nature of the things of the visible universe), things 
in no way profitable to salvation. Hence they did 
not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but 
rather described and dealt with things in more or 
less figurative language, or in terms which were 
commonly used at the time, and which in many 
instances are in daily use at this day, even by the 
most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech 
primarily and properly describes what comes under 
the senses; and somewhat in the same way the 
sacred writers—as the Angelic Doctor also reminds 
us 'went by what sensibly appeared,' or put down 



8 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way 
men could understand and were accustomed to"(4) 

Finally, on June 30, 1909, the Biblical Commis-
sion made the following declaration: "In the first 
chapter of Genesis we are not bound to look for sci-
entific exactitude of expression, since it was not the 
intention of the sacred writer to teach us the inner-
most nature of visible things, nor to present the 
complete order of creation in a scientific manner, but 
rather to furnish his people with a popular account, 
such as the common parlance of the age allows, one 
namely, adapted to the senses and to man's intelli-
gence." 

Had the Bible taught a supernaturally revealed 
system of science, the sacred volume would have 
proved a sealed and unintelligible book. The knowl-
edge of the race develops in the same way as the 
knowledge of the individual; that is, slowly. The 
child begins with concrete images and gradually 
forms abstract concepts. If Moses had taught ab-
stract science, the Jews would not have understood 
him. If the sacred writers have often been misunder-
stood and disbelieved, even though they adopted the 
modes of thought and expression of their time, what 
would have happened had they recorded the natural 
happenings of the Bible in advanced scientific ter-
minology? "These men are full of new wine," the 
Jews would have sarcastically said, and with one 
gesture rejected the entire Scripture. Suppose a 
railway timetable—to take a parallel case—were 
written in the terms of an Observatory, of what 
"se would it be to an ordinary man waiting for the 
t r a m ? T h e popular idiom, on the other hand, is al-
<i) November 18, 1893. 



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE 9 

ways true, because it employs relative standards in 
the contemplation of nature; it remains forever in-
telligible to the masses, because it makes no claim 
to describe facts in an absolute manner. 

We do not mean to affirm that the purely sci-
entific portions of Scripture have no claim to divine 
authority, or to deny that they are absolutely in-
fallible. As a part of the inspired word of God they 
embody divine revelation. Besides, as the same God 
has written the Bible and established the laws of 
natural science, there can be no real contradiction 
between them. If there are apparent contradictions, 
then we read wrongly either the Bible or the laws 
of science. However, since the first chapter of Gen-
esis is capable of different explanations, and since 
the infallible Church has given no final authentic 
interpretation of it, but, on the contrary, has given 
full liberty to exegetes, science is not hampered in 
her peculiar field of inquiry. 

The Mosaic narrative constitutes, not a positive, 
but a negative guiding principle for the scientist. 
All that can be justly demanded is that the scientist 
refrain from contradicting the following truths of 
fai th: that God created all things out of nothing, 
that God created in the beginning of time, that God 
is the sole Creator of the universe, and that He 
created all things good. The scientist, then, may 
not defend such propositions as the following: mat-
ter is eternal; matter and energy are the sole prin-
ciples of the universe; the world originated by mere 
chance. In all other scientific matters, he may hold 
such conclusions as the facts warrant. 

As for the Scripturist, he is free to interpret 
the Sacred Books in accordance with the rules of 



10 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS
1 

Biblical interpretation. It would not do to impose 
the theories of physical science as a positive norm 
of Biblical interpretation, and to demand that Gen-
esis be explained in accordance with constantly 
changing hypothesis. All that can be reasonably 
demanded is that exegetes accept the established 
conclusions of science as a negative guiding princi-
ple, and refrain from advocating as certain, or even 
as probable, any theory which would contradict 
ascertained scientific facts. 

Discussion Aids 
Chapter I 

1. Is Genesis a scientific textbook? 
2. Does Moses describe the complete order of 

creation? Explain. 
3. What two principles are laid down by St. ' 

Augustine ? 
4. What principle is laid down by St. Thomas? 
5. Summarize the teaching of Leo XIII. 
6. What declaration was made by the Biblical 

Commission in 1909? 
7. Would it have been advisable for Moses to 

write in an abstract scientific style? Ex-
plain. 

8. Are the scientific portions of Scripture in-
spired? Do we as yet fully understand them? 

9. In what sense is the Mosaic narrative a 
guide for the scientist? 

10. In what sense is physical science a guide for 
the Scripture? 



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE 11 

Religious Practices 

Chapter I • 
1. I will recite with great fervor and devotion 

the words of the Creed: "I believe in God 
the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and 
earth." 

2. I will frequently recall the words of the 
Psalmist: "The heavens declare the glory of 
God and the firmament the work of Hia 
hands." 

3. Living in the times of the fulfilled Promise, 
I will thank "God the Father, who hath de-
livered us from the power of darkness, and 
hath-translated us into the kingdom of the 
Son of His love" (Colossians 1:12-13). 



Chapter II 

The Bible and Science (Cont'd) 
The Six Days 

On June 30, 1909, the Biblical Commission de-
clared that the word "day" (yom), which is used 
in the first chapter of Genesis for describing and 
distinguishing the six days, may be taken in a broad 
sense as signifying a "space" of time'1 ' . Many rea-
sons militate in favor of interpreting the term "day" 
as a "period" of time and not as an ordinary natural 
day of twenty four hours. In the first place, geology, 
paleontology, and astronomy all maintain that the 
formation of the universe, including our own planet, 
cannot be compressed within the limits of one nat-
ural week. Coal, for example, and chalk postulate 
immense periods of time for their development. Sec-
ondly, the first three "days" of the opening chapter 
of Genesis could not have been solar days in the strict 
sense of the term, because the sun was not created 
until the fourth day; it was only then that the sun 
and the moon were to be "for signs, and for seasons, 
and for days and years" (Genesis 1:14). St. Augus-
tine already remarked that it is practically impos-
sible to define the exact nature of these ante-solar 
days 1 2 F i n a l l y , the seventh "day" on which the 
Creator "rested" was certainly not an ordinary day 
since it still continues. In Genesis 1:5, 14-18 the 
term "day" is used as an equivalent of "daylight"-^ 
another instance indicative of the loose and broad 

(1) Quoted in H. Pope's The Catholic Student's "Aids" to the Bible (London 
1918) 2nd. ed., p. 182. 

(2) De Civitate Dei 6:6. 



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE (CONT'D) 13 

•sense in which the term yom is used by the sacred 
writer. 

The Hebrew term for "day"—namely, yom—is 
frequently employed by Sacred Scripture in a wider 
sense to denote an indefinite period of time. Thus 
in Genesis II, 4 the entire period of six days is re-
ferred to as one "day": "These are the generations 
of the heaven and the earth, when they were created 
in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and 
the earth." In Ezechiel 7:7 we find the terms "day" 
and "time" used synonymously: "The time is come, 
the day of slaughter is near." And in Amos 8:13 
we read. "In that day (i.e., at that time) the fair 
virgins shall faint." "Day" is also used- as a syno-
nym for "time" in such expressions as "days of my 
vanity" (Ecclesiastes 7:16), "day of tribulation" 
(IV ihngs 19:3), "the sinner's day" (Psalms 36:13), 
"the day of cold" (Nahum 3:17). At times, Scrip-
ture employs the word "day" to describe some par-
ticular event irrespective of duration as, for instance, 
"the day of Madian" (Isaias 9:4), "the day of the 
Lord" (Joel 2:1). Hence, in the book of Genesis 
"day" may well mean an act-or operation regardless 
of duration, and the analogous terms "evening" and 
"morning" may denote the completion of one and 
the beginning of another action (Daniel 8:14, 26). 

Why, then, did Moses choose the term "day" to 
describe the periods of Creation? Why did he not 
employ some Hebrew term to indicate that he meant 
indefinite periods of time? The week of the creation 
with its six periods crowned by the Creator's day of 
repose typified man's week of labor which terminates 
with the Sabbath: "Six days thou shalt work; the 
seventh day 'thou shalt cease" (Exodus 23:12); 



14 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, 
and the sea, and all things that are in them, and 
rested on the seventh day; therefore, the Lord 
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it" (Exodus 
20:11). The divine week of creation is the model 
upon which man should pattern his week of labor; 
the Sabbath is the exemplar of his day of rest which 
he is to consecrate to God. Now, when between a 
type and that which it figures there obtains a re-
lation of real similarity, the laws of analogy justify 
the use of the same concept and the same term <3). 

The origin of light as described in the first chap-
ter of Genesis presents a special difficulty. Light 
is said to have been created on the first day (v. 3) 
and the sun on the fourth (v. 14). But can an effect 
exist before and apart from the cause upon which 
it depends? The solution offered to solve this prob-
lem may be conveniently divided into two classes: 

1. The First group presupposes that Moses, in 
recounting the works of the six days, is following the 
chronological order, that is, that he is enumerating 
six consecutive periods and is describing the inner 
interrelationship between things. 

a) .Consonant with this presupposition are the 
three views current in St. Thomas's time and cited 
by him: (4) (1) The light was' a luminous cloud 
which disappeared after the creation of the sun. (2) 
This luminous cloud was merged with the sun and is 
no longer distinguishable from it. (3) The sun was 
formed out of this luminous cloud. The weak ,point 
in all these explanations lies in the fact that they 
fail to explain how the cloud itself became luminous. 

b) Others maintain that the heavenly bodies 

(3) J . M. Simon, A Scripture Manual (New York, 1924), Vol. I, p. 212. 
-(4) Summa Theologien I ( q. 67, a. 4, ad 2um. 



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE (CONT'D) 15 

were made from the very beginning but became vis-
ible only on the fourth day. However plausible this 
explanation may seem, it is not in harmony with the 
clear statements of the Bible. 

c) St. Thomas himself proposes the following 
theory i B ) : On the first day God created light in 
general; on the fourth day light became more spe-
cifically determined so that one was the light of the 
sun', the other of the moon, etc. In terms of modern 
science, this Thomistic theory may be restated in 
the following manner: The world began as a fiery 
mass (light of the first day). From this fiery cloud 
the world evolved by a process that went on for 
countless ages. The mass began to revolve and 
pressure naturally set in. Mighty portions of this 
mass were flung off into space which formed into 
separate spheres, gradually cooled off and acquired 
a hard crust. And thus arose the whole solar sys-
tem—the sun, the moon, and the stars (light of the 
fourth day). 

This theory, while it may explain satisfactorily 
Genesis 1:3, 14, can hardly be reconciled with the 
facts narrated in Genesis 1:3-14. Secondly, it is 
well to remember that Genesis is not a technical, 
scientific textbook—which would have been unin-
telligible to the Jews—but a popular description of 
the origin of the universe, an account adapted to the 
intelligence of the reader. Finally, this explanation 
identifies Biblical statements too closely with the 
changing and shifting theories of modern science. 
It is not well to hitch one's chariot to a shooting star, 
lest with the breakdown of the scientific hypothesis 
the Biblical text itself may seem to be endangered. 

(5) Summa Theologica, I q. 70, a. I. ad 2um. 



16 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

In our estimation, all these inconveniences are 
avoided by the second theory. 

2. The second group of exegetes maintains 
that Moses classified the works of the six "days" ac-
cording to a mental outline and not according to 
the order in time. For him the six days were 
simply six distinct outstanding periods of God's 
creative activity. His primary purpose in Genesis I 
was to teach in a popular manner the great truth 
that God created all things out of nothing. In 
order to impress more forcibly the unlettered people 
for whom he wrote, Moses chose those divine works 
which appeal in a particular manner to the senses, 
and assigned some to each one of the six "days." In 
distributing God's works among the six "days", 
Moses proceeds in a general manner from the lower 
to the higher, without, however, taking into 
consideration the intrinsic chronological relation 
between things. In other words, in assign-
ing the works of God to the six days, Moses fol-
lowed an arrangement which existed more in his 
mind than in nature. This explains why he could 
assign light to the first "day" and the sun to the 
fourth. Science and Genesis, consequently, move 
on different planes; the one follows a chronological, 
the other a logical order; there are not necessarily 
any points of contact between them and a conflict 
is, therefore, impossible. 

The Four Thousand Years 

By interpreting the "days" of Genesis as indefi-
nite periods we have made provision for the theories 
of scientists who maintain that the world is millions 
of years old. But in so doing do we not encounter 
another difficulty? Does not the Bible say that man-



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE (CONT'D) 17 

kind was only four thousand years old at the Coming 
of Christ? 

In regard to this difficult problem of Biblical 
chronology it is well to keep in mind the following 
principles : 

1. The Church has not defined the age of the 
world but leaves it an open question. Hence, there 
can be no conflict between faith and science on this 
point. 

2. There is no Biblical passage which states 
definitely how old the world or mankind is. 

3. Catholic faith teaches that Adam and Eve 
were thè first parents of the actual human race. If 
men existed in preceding geological epochs, they all 
perished, since the Bible explicitly states that Adam 
was the only man and Eve the only woman at the 
time of creation (Genesis 2:5, 20). This hypothesis 
of men existing in the early geological epochs is 
usually propounded by those who maintain that man 
is evolved wholly out of the ape or some animal 
ancestor, and who deny to man a spiritual soul. 

4. The genealogies of the Bible, on which 
chronologies are often based, are incomplete and 
fragmentary. Thus St. Matthew writes (Matthew 
1:8) : "Joram begot Ozias" ; but .we know that be-
tween the two intervened Ochozias, Jbab, and Amas-
ias. Similar gaps exist in the Old Testament gene-
alogies; large lists of members intervening between 
two patriarchs are frequently omitted. The Jews 
were fond of dividing their genealogies into more 
or less artificial groups, according to the mystical 
numbers determined in advance. In order to make 
the generations agree with such figures they would 
omit or repeat certain names. 



18 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

As Professor Sayce points out (6), The Hebrew 
vocabulary was extremely limited, and the Hebrew 
writer had often to use one word in several different 
meanings. Thus, for example, the term "son" was 
frequently used as equivalent to "descendant" and 
"successor." While to the Hebrew reader, who was 
acquainted with the Semitic idiom, these words con-
veyed exact meanings, to us they present difficulties; 
we cannot compute accurately the age of individual 
members and, especially, of the span covered by 
them collectively. Again, the numbers in the Greek 
Septuagint differ from those in the Hebrew text; 
those in the Samaritan version differ from both the 
Hebrew and Greek. Hence these Biblical texts must 
have been retouched and their numbers are con-
sequently uncertain. Finally, scientists are by no 
means agreed as to the exact age of the world. Some 
say it is millions of years old, and others still less. 
Thus there devolves no duty upon the Scripturist to 
reconcile Biblical statements with the conflicting 
theories of scientists. 

The four weeks of Advent do not necessarily 
imply that mankind awaited the coming of the Re-
deemer for only four thousand years. A Jewish 
system of chronology, it is true, counted 4,000 years 
(100 generations of 40 years each) before Christ; 
but it used this figure as a round number to denote 
a world epoch, the period from Adam to the Messias. 
The Advent season was originally of unequal length. 
At first, eight or ten days' preparation for Christmas 
Day was prescribed. This was extended to five or 
six weeks, and the growing desire to make it anal-
ogous with Lent suggested a period of fasting before 

(6) Early History of the Hebrews (London, 1897), p. 144. 



THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE (CONT'D) 19 

the Christmas festival beginning on St. Martin's Day, 
the eleventh of November. The present arrange-
ment of four week's preparation for Christmas was 
adopted in the Western Church only in the eleventh 
century. 

Discussion Aids 
Set I 

1. What is the meaning of "day" as used in the 
first chapter of Genesis? Give three reasons 
for your answer. 

2. Does the Bible elsewhere use the term "day" 
to denote an indefinite period? Give examples. 

3. Why did not Moses use some Hebrew term 
to indicate that he meant an indefinite period 
of time? 

4. How explain the origin of light before the 
creation of the sun? Give the explanations 
of the two groups of scholars. 

5. Did Moses follow the chronological or logical 
order? What order does the scientist always 
follow? Can there be a contradiction between 
Moses and the scientists? 

Set II 

H Has the Church defined the age of the world? 
2. Does the Bible anywhere tell us the exact" 

age of the world? 

3. Did man exist in the early geological epochs, 
before Adam and Eve? If so, what became 
of him? 

4. Are the genealogies of the Old Testament 
complete? 



22 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

5. What does the Old Testament term "son" 
frequently mean? 

6. Are scientists agreed as to the age of the 
world? 

7. Do the 4 weeks of Advent imply that man ex-
isted 4,000 years before Christ? In what 
sense is the figure 4000 used? 

Religious Practices 
1. From the wonderful works in creation I will 

frequently lift my mind in adoration and 
thanksgiving to the Creator of all things. 

2. I will devote the six days of the week to the 
work assigned to me by divine Providence, 
and I will consecrate the Lord's day to a 
special service of God. 

3. I will prepare myself during the four weeks 
of Advent for the coming of Christ to me 
on judgment day. 



Chapter II I 

Creation and Evolution 
Absolute Evolution 

What does the Catholic Church teach about 
evolution? Is the Church opposed to the evolutionary 
hypothesis? May a Catholic accept evolution without 
prejudice to his faith? These and similar questions 
are frequently raised in the press, and in conver-
sations between Catholics and those outside the 
Church. In the present chapter we shall point out 
the kind of evolution to which a Catholic may not 

.subscribe. In the first place, a Catholic may not, 
obviously, admit an evolutionistic theory which de-
nies the existence of a First Cause, of a Creator and 
Conserver of the universe. St. Paul explicitly 
teaches that man can reason from effects observable 
in the world to the existence of a Supreme Being: 
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation 
of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by 
the things that are made; His eternal power also, 
and divinity" (Romans 1:20). This same God cre-
ated heaven and earth out of nothing: "I beseech 
thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth and all 
that is in them and consider that God made them 
out of nothing" (II Machabees 7:28). Over these 
works of His hands God rules by His beneficent 
Providence, "reaching from end to end mightily and 
ordering all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1). 

Secondly, a Catholic may not admit an evolu-
tionist theory which postulates spontaneous genera-
tion in the strict sense. The exponents of spon-
taneous generation maintain that life is generated 



22 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS
1 

from dead matter without any pre-existing germ 
or seed, and entirely apart from God's intervention. 
This doctrine is contradicted by both science and 
sound philosophy. For it is an ever-recurring fact 
of universal experience that every living being orig-
inates from a pre-existing living being. The French 
savant, Pasteur, and other noted scientists have dem-
onstrated, with the aid of experiments, that no life 
can be generated in a medium where all seeds and 
germs have been destroyed; the minute animals 
which are sometimes said to be generated in the air, 
do not originate from inorganic matter but from 
germs and- seeds deposited and floating in the air. 
The experiments of Pasteur have been pronounced 
as true by the French Academy. Huxley affirmed 
that Pasteur's experiments have exploded the doc-
trine of spontaneous generation, and Tyndall adds 
that no case of so-called spontaneous generation has 
as yet presented itself which could not be explained 
in several other ways. 

At this point the infidel will, perhaps, advance 
the following claim: Although our laboratories have 
not produced life in the past, it is possible, nay prob-
able, that science will accomplish this feat in the 
near future. The answer to this difficulty is simple 
and easy: right reason tells us that no effect can 
exceed the perfection of its cause or, more precisely, 
of the totality of its causes. Should life at any 
time spring from matter, it would result from the 
fact that God Himself would intervene and by His 
power supply what is wanting to the cause in order 
to be proportionate to the effect. Such an interven-
tion of God is probably insinuated in Genesis 1:11, 
which refers to one of the stages of creation: "And 



CREATION AND EVOLUTION 23 

God said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb 
and such as may seed." 

Thirdly, no evolutionary theory which explains 
the origin of all things by a blind necessity or by a 
mere chance, is acceptable. Chance is something 
accidental, disorderly,-sporadic, and chaotic. It can-
not explain the harmony, finality, the subordination 
of means to an end traceable everywhere in the uni-
verse. It cannot explain the wonderful co-ordina-
tion prevalent, already in historical times, among 
the various living species, nor the perfect subordina-
tion of organs to a common end within the same spe-
cies. It cannot explain instinct in animals and in-
tellect in man. Facts such as these point to and de-
mand a Supreme Intelligence. After having re-
called God's command that the earth bring forth 
herbs and trees, (Genesis 1 t h e author of Gen-
esis continues: <'And the earth brought forth the 
green herb, and such as yielded seed according to 
its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed 
each one according to its kind" (Genesis 1:12). 
These words describe the execution of the divine 
command mentioned in the preceding verse and im-
ply divine intervention. They indicate that species 
did not evolve fortuitously, but according to the 
plan of a wise and divine Law giver. 

Finally, a Catholic may not approve any evolu-
tionistic theory which presupposes that the world 
existed from all eternity. Scripture clearly states-
that the existing universe is not from everlasting 
but was created by God in time: "In the beginning 
God created heaven and earth" (Genesis 1:1). The 
Bible uses expressions which clearly indicate that 
the world had a beginning: "Before the mountains 
were made or the earth and the world was formed" 



24 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

(Psalms 89:2); "The Lord possessed me in the be-
ginning of His ways, before He made anything from 
the beginning" (Proverbs 8:22); "He chose us in 
Him before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 
1:4). Modern writers appeal with increasing fre-
quency to this doctrine of the eternity of matter, 
hoping thereby to dispense with the necessity of pos-
tulating a First Cause. But they overshot the mark. 
The world is imperfect, transitory, contingent. If 
it were eternal—although revelation teaches us that 
it was made in time—it would be eternally insuf-
ficient and eternally in need of a First Cause to 
sustain it in existence. Modern writers unwittingly 
prove the reality of one of God's attributes, namely, 
eternity, otherwise, they might as well affirm that the 
addition of an indefinite number of links will even-
tually make a suspended chain self-sustaining; or 
that ten thousand idiots can constitute an intelligent 
person, or that brush, if its handle be long enough, 
will paint of itself. 

Moderate Evolution 

The theory of mitigated evolution, which affirms 
that all living species, except man, developed, under 
God's Providence, from lower forms and more prim-
itive types, is not opposed to divine faith and may 
be held by a Catholic. The words of Genesis, "Let 
the earth bring forth the green herb," etc. (Genesis 
1:11), imply some intervention of God's will in the 
determination of the speci6s. But Sacred Scrip-
ture does not evidently affirm that God created all 
things at once in their full perfection. Scripture 
does not make it clear whether the species were 
created immediately or developed in the course of 
time, whether they were produced with an absolute 



CREATION AND EVOLUTION 25 

or only a relative fixity. It is silent as to the manner 
in which the earth produces the variety of species. 
According to the learned psychologist, Father La-
housse, "The derivation of some species from others 
still leaves us free to say that God created them on a 
determined day or epoch. God foresaw from all 
eternity the subsequent species which would come 
into existence, and endowed the primitive types with 
the power to produce them."(1) In this sense God 
may be said to have created mediately all the sub-
sequent species. 

Is moderate evolution scientifically tenable? 
Many savants, Catholic as well as non-Catholic, ac-
cept this theory. Father A. Tanquerey (2) sums up 
their arguments under the following fine heads: 

1. The embryo of the more perfect animals 
passes through certain stages in which it bears re-
semblance to lower species the remains 'of which are 
to be found in the strata of the earth. The evolution 
of every embryo is, as it were, a recapitulation of 
the history of the species; this fact is confirmed, in 
addition by the existence of certain rudimentary 
bodily organs which were once useful but which 
have gradually atrophied and become superfluous. 

2. The remains of various species of animals 
found in the layers of the earth follow one another 
in such orderly succession that we are justified in 
concluding that the higher species originated from 
the less perfect. 

3. The marvelous uniformity of the organisms 
among the different classes of living beings betrays 
their common descent from one of a few types; they 
are like branches proceeding from a common trunk. 

( 1 > 1921)6 i i " 4co T a n q U e r e y ' S y n o p 8 i s Theologiae Dogmaticae (Paris, 
(2) 0 . C. pp. 460-463. 



26 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

4. Animals of the same country or of neighbor-
ing countries, to which there is an easy passage from 
the former, bear great resemblances one to another. 
On the other hand, animals of widely separated 
countries are most dissimilar. Hence living beings 
are so modified by the environment that new species 
gradually arose. 

5. By means of artificial selection new proper-
ties have been produced in existing species. After 
several generations these properties will be intensi-
fied to such an extent that a new species will be 
produced. If this is possible today, when the species 
have acquired a certain fixity and stability, how 
much more would this be the case when they were 
still flexible because of their youth? 

The opponents of moderate evolution, as Fa-
ther A. Tanquerey points out, parallel these argu-
ments with equally cogent—and perhaps more philo-
sophical—answers: 

1. The development of the embryo does not 
prove the truth of evolution, since it always takes 
place in the same way and within the same limits. 
All that we can infer is that the higher species 
possess the perfections of the lower. An organ, the 
utility of which is not immediately apparent, is not 
necessarily vestigial and superfluous. 

2. The disposition of the fossils in the geologi-
cal strata does not- prove that the more perfect orig-
inated from the less perfect; it merely shows that 
the former came after the latter. Frequently we 
find the two side by side and occasionally the more 
perfect precedes the less perfect. 

3. Although there are great resemblances be-
tween closely related species, there are also dis-



CREATION AND EVOLUTION 27 

similarities, both internal and external. The mar-
velous uniformity among organisms does not neces-
sarily establish a common origin but shows that God 
in creating living things wishes that for the greater 
perfection of the universe there be unity amid 
variety. 

4. The geographical distribution of the species 
is easily explained by admitting several centers of 
creation. God created in each country such species 
as' would adapt themselves to' the surroundings and 
environment. 

5. Artificial selection may produce new varieties 
of species but not new species. Besides, such new 
varieties will speedily vanish if left to shift for 
themselves. Hybrids are seldom fertile, and even 
if fertile, cannot produce a new species. 

The arguments of both the exponents and op-
ponents of moderate evolution are weighty, but not 
conclusive. The investigations and progress of 
science will probably show which of the two views 
will ultimately prevail. 

Emergent Evolution 
An evolutionary theory which is at present en-

joying considerable vogue in the English-speaking 
countries is that of "emergent" evolution. Closely 
related to this theory is that of Holism which de-
scribes the universe as a system of "wholes." The 
author of the former is Lloyd Morgan, U ) , of the 
latter, General J. C. Smuts. (2). According to Mr. 
Morgan, the universe in its first stages consisted 
of some physical, unspecified forerunner of matter, 
distributed in systems of very simple organization. 
These systems gradually became more complex. 

(1) Emergent Evolution (New York, 1923). 
(2) Holism and Evolution (New York, 1926). 



28 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Varied combinations gave rise to chemical elements 
such as oxygen, hydrogen, sulphur, iron, etc. The 
qualities of these resultants were the "emergents"; 
they were new in the world on their first appearance 
and gave rise to events which were different from 
all previous occurrences. The process by which they 
arose is best designated by the term "emergence." 

The elements in turn combined with one another 
in various ways. Carbon united with sulphur to 
form carbon bisulphide, chlorin with hydrogen to 
form hydrochloric acid, oxygen with hydrogen to 
form water. A molecule of water exhibited emer-
gent qualities, that is, properties not manifested by 
nor discoverable in hydrogen and oxygen in their 
pure state. The potentialities previously latent in 
the two elements now became actualized. Syn-
theses or wholes of further degrees of complexity 
resulted in the emergence of life. This new emergent 
was not due to the influence of some extrinsic energy 
or force but to new kinds of intrinsic relatedness 
and complexity. As these new intrinsic relations 
were established, properties emerged distinctive of 
living beings, namely, irritability, conductivity, 
power of growth assimilation, regeneration, etc. 
Further conjunctions of living systems- and' further 
intrinsic complications resulted successively in the 
emergence of sentience, cognition, mind, intellect,, 
and moral responsibility. 

Whatever may be said in favor of the "mod-
ernity" of emergent evolution, to us the theory pre-
sents very serious difficulties. In the first place, 
when came this "unspecified forerunner of matter," 
the existence of which is postulated by Mr. Morgan? 
Is it eternal, or is it self-explanatory—suppositions, 
which are patently false—or is it created by God? 



CREATION AND EVOLUTION 29 

By implicitly affirming spontaneous generation— 
the generation of life from dead matter without any 
pre-existing seed or germ and entirely apart from 
God's intervention—the theory is exposed , to all 
the objections that can be urged against that absurd 
tenet. The theory postulates the irrational prin-
ciples that the lower can of itself and out of itself 
produce the higher, the less perfect the more per-
fect. It derives man both as to his soul and body 
from the evolutionary process, and excludes the 
special intervention of God in the creation of our 
first parents. 

Let us not think, however, that the Church is 
entirely hostile to the conception of the world pre-
sented by Morgan and Smuts. St. Thomas,-too, 
has his system of philosophical Holism; but his ex-
planation differs from the theories of contemporary 
philosophy in that it recognizes an All-Wise, Or-
daining, Creative Intelligence and is free from the 
absurd principles that the greater comes from the 
less and that the higher is subject to the lower. 
Catholic thought believes in the interlocking of be-
ings. It recognizes that all creation is arranged 
without a leap or break in a wondrous sequence of 
stages of development. In a magnificent chain of 
beings life is found in every conceivable and progres-
sive form. The gradation from the lowest particle 
of matter up to the highest spirit is an uninterrupted 
ascension from perfection to perfection. There is 
no gap in the universe, no violent transition. The 
universe is a perfect whole in which the highep be-
ing invariably possesses the perfection of the being 
that precedes it. The universe has all the continu-
ance of growth. Even when growth is no longer pos-
sible—namely, in the angelic kingdom—there is an 
uninterrupted continuance in the scale of beings. 



30 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Discussion Aids 
1. May a Catholic accept an evolution which 

denies the existence of a First Cause? Which 
accepts spontaneous generation? Which says 
that the world arose by a mere chance? 
Which claims that the world is eternal"? 

2. Define moderate evolution. 
3. Is it opposed^ to Sacred Scripture? 
4. What five arguments are advanced in favor 

of moderate evolution? Explain each. 
5. How do the conservative scholars answer the 

arguments ? 
6. Which side do you think has the weightier 

arguments ? 
7. Who are the principal exponents of emergent 

evolution and holism? 
8. According to these two systems, how did the 

universe and everything in it gradually orig-
inate? 

9. What are the objectionable features in these 
two systems? 

10. Is there a Catholic Holism? Explain. 

Religious Practices 
1. I will always praise the great power and 

wisdom of God as manifest in the creation 
and development of the universe. 

2. When I am delighted with the beauties of 
God's creation, I will lift my heart to Him 
and thank Him for His goodness. 

3. In looking at the world around me, I shall try 
to understand the truth that if Gad withdrew 
His power from the universe it' would in-
stantly drop back into that boundless nothing 
from whence it came. 



Chapter IV 

The Origin of Man 
Origin Of Man's Soul 

The problem of man's origin comprises two 
distinct questions; namely, the origin of the human 
soul and the origin of the human body. The origin 
of the first offers little difficulty: everyone admits 
that the soul is created directly and immediately by 
God. Since the soul is simple and devoid of parts, 
it cannot disengage itself or emanate from the souls 
or bodies of the parents. Since it is spiritual, it 
cannot be produced by a corporal substance. Since 
it is intellectual, it cannot evolve out of a purely 
sensitive . animal soul. The philosophical principle 
underlying all these assertions is the same—the 
perfections of the effect cannot exceed the perfec-
tions of the cause. 

Scientists, such as Darwin, Haeckel, and Spen-
cer, maintain that man evolved not only as to his 
body but also as to his soul—according to merely 
natural laws and without God's intervention—from 
the ape or from some common animal ancestor. In 
propounding this materialistic doctrine, these ab-
solute evolutionists have deliberately closed their 
eyes to the essential differences existing between 
the human and animal souls. Man is endowed with 
an intellect and reason; he arrives at universal ideas 
and at a knowledge of the nature or essence of 
things; he has an understanding of such concepts 
as cause, sufficient reason, contingency, effect, etc.; 
activities such as these transcend the domain of the 



32 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

senses, and presuppose a spiritual and unextended 
substance, namely, the soul. The ape, on the other 
hand, knows only particular and extended things and 
their individual properties. Man is progressive, in-
vents new things and subjugates the forces of na-
ture. The brute, on the other hand, performs its 
actions in the same way today as it did a hundred 
years ago. Since man is rational he is also a moral 
being; he can distinguish between good and evil. 
But what ape has ever manifested a sense of re-
morse? Again, while man is religious, the ape never 
evidences any sign of realization of dependence on 
a higher Being. Finally, man possesses the faculty 
of speech—the faculty, namely, of expressing ex-
ternally and intelligently his sensations and ideas. 

The human soul is created by God at the very 
moment of its infusion into the body. The teach-
ing of the Fathers on this point is summed up briefly 
and accurately by Peter Lombard who says: "The 
Catholic Church teaches that souls are infused into 
the body, and by being infused are at the same time 
actually created" (1). The New Testament teaches 
that the soul is spiritual and distinct from the body: 
"Fear ye not them that kill the body and are not 
able to kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28). St. Paul 
tells us that this immaterial soul is capable of knowl-
edge : "What man knoweth the things of a man, but 
the spirit of a man that is in him" (I Corinthians 
2:11). The immortality of the soul, besides being 
asserted explicitly, is contained implicitly in all 
of our Lord's exhortations to strive after eternal 
blessings. Without this doctrine of the immortality 
Of the soul, the Incarnation and the Redemption 
would be unintelligible. 

(1) Sentent lib. n , d. 18. n. 8. 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN 33 

Origin Of Man's Body 

The origin of man's body continues to be the 
subject of considerable controversy. The moderate 
evolutionists contend that man's body originated 
from the ape or from some brute. They maintain 
that under the influence of natural law's established 
by God, the body of some animal gradually evolved 
to the point where it was capable of receiving a 
rational soul created by God. This theory is pro-
pounded or favored—under one form or another— 
by George Mivart (2>, F. J. Hall <3>, of Western 
Theological Seminary of Chicago, Canon Paquier <4) 

of Paris, and Father Messenger (5) of England. 
Canon Paquier writes: "The paleontologic discov-
eries seem to point to an application of the evolution-
ary theory to man. ' Nevertheless, up to date great 
difficulties exist." Paquier is not in favor of a slow 
gradual evolution of man's body; he prefers a rapid 
transformation and a brusque ascent through one of 
those mutations to which De Vries has called at-
tention. Dr. Messenger demands a divine inter-
vention for the humanizing of a body generated by 
non-human parents. 

| Let us now evaluate this theory of moderate 
evolution. According to the Book of Genesis, "The 
Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth, and 
breathed into his face the breath of life" (Genesis 
2:7). Taken in its obvious sense the Scriptural 
text says that Adam's body was formed of the slime 
of the earth—that is, from inorganic matter or from 
the chemical elements of the earth—and not from 

(2) Cf. article on Mivart in Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, p. 407. 
(3) Evolution and the Fall (New York, 1910). 
(4) La Creation et I'Evolution (Paris, 1932). 
(5) Evolution and Theology (London, 1931) ; cf. also G. J . MacGillivray. 

Man (New York, 1932), 



34 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

the body of some brute. The Hebrew text inter-
preted literally says: "God gave to dust the form 
of man." To say that God transformed this dust into 
various beings, and then into an animal body, and 
finally into a human body, is to give to the Biblical 
passage a very elastic meaning. When Messenger 
and Paquier demand a special divine intervention or 
sudden transformation in favor of man's body, they 
are—without perhaps realizing it—closer to the 
Biblical doctrine of the direct and immediate crea-
tion of man's body by God than they are to evolu-
tion. Secondly, if one of the parallel phrases, assert-
ing that God breathed the "breath of life" into 
Adam's face, is to be taken literally as denoting im-
mediate activity, in like manner the other parallel 
passage, speaking of the formation of Adam's body, 
is to be taken literally. Finally, the same chapter 
of Genesis (Genesis 2:21-24) affirms that Eve was 
formed directly from Adam's rib. Now, it would 
be against the spirit of revelation to'attribute a more 
noble origin to woman than to man, since revelation 
always represents man as the head of woman. 

The human soul is simple, spiritual, and in-
divisible. Although man has vegetative, sensitive, 
and rational life, he has not three souls, since the 
rational soul contains in an eminent degree—within 
the simplicity and spirituality of its substance—the 
perfections of all the lower souls. Now, if at a cer-
tain point of the evolutionary process a rational soul 
was infused into the body of an ape, what happened 
to the animal soul? The two cannot co-éxist side by 
side, since man would then be a double being; more-
over, an "animal soul—alongside of the rational— 
would be superfluous and unnecessary. The rational 
soul, being simple and spiritual, cannot absorb the 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN 35 

animal soul. The only satisfactory solution would 
seem to be that the ape-soul was destroyed at the 
moment that the rational soul was infused into the 
ape body. But an animal soul is inseparably bound 
up with the animal body. Are we then to suppose 
that God created animal life and then miraculously 
destroyed it? 

Science also points to important differences be-
tween the ape body and the human body. The ape 
is a climber, man is a walker. The ape is four-
handed, man is two-handed. The sphenoidal lobe 
diminishes in man after birth, it increases in the ape 
after birth. The features of the brain which appear 
first in man appear last in the ape. At this point 
the evolutionist would, no doubt, interfere and assure 
us that these differences in man's anatomical struc-
ture developed gradually in the process of evolution. 
If this be true, are we not justified in raising the 
following questions: Why is not the ape body grad-
ually developing these variations today—all the more 
so since this evolution is said to take place according 
to natural laws? Why does history and the memory 
of civilized man contain -no record of such develop-
ment in some corner of the universe? Why, finally, 
do the geological strata or layers of the earth con-
tain no fossils or remains which would link the ape 
with man and bridge the hiatus between the two! 
True, pseudoscience claims to have established sev-
eral of these "missing links" and has conferred on 
them lofty and sonorous titles. From a skull dis-
covered in 1850 in the Dussel valley near the Rhine 
it has constructed the "Neanderthal Man." From 
the vault of a cranium, a thighbone, and two molar 
teeth found in the river bed of Java in 1891, it has 
constructed the "Phitecanthropus erectus." From a 



36 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS
1 

jaw discovered in 1908 has emerged the so-called 
"Heidelberg Man." From various fragments of a jaw 
and a skull, discovered in 1911 in a gravel bed by 
Prof. Dawson of England, has come the "Eoan-
thropus." Unfortunately, however/ according to 
the highest authorities in science, these fossils fail 
to establish a species midway between the ape and 
man, but belong to the strictly simian or the strictly 
human kingdoms. As H. Muckermann says, "There 
is no trace of even a merely probable argument in 
favor of the animal origin of man. The earliest 
human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture 
refer to a true Homo Sapiens as we know him to-
day." <•> 

Modern writers insist upon the great similari-
ties between the animal body and the human body, 
and conclude that the latter must have originated 
from the former. Catholic thought acknowledges 
these resemblances, but it maintains that the con-
clusion does not necessarily follow. Catholic philos-
ophy admits, interlockings, complication, and conti-
nuity in the universe. It grants that all creation is 
arranged without a leap or break in a wondrous se-
quence of stages of development. There is no gap 
in the universe, no violent transition. The universe 
is a perfect whole in which the higher being invari-
ably possesses the perfection of the being that pre-
cedes it. But all this does not necessarily exclude the 
direct and immediate creation of the human body. 
The human body enjoys a unique dignity by serving 
as the instrument of the divinely created soul. It 
was raised to the highest possible dignity when it 
was subsumed into unity with the Divine Word at 

(6) Article on "Evolution" in Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 670. cf. also 
W. Schmidt, "Primitive Revelation" (St. Louis, 1989, p. 49 ff. 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN 37 

the Incarnation. Finally, it alone—and not the ape 
body—will partake together with the soul in the 
joys of the Beatific Vision. 

Theologically, the theory of the brute origin of 
the human body is not hereticaksince the Church has 
made no infallible pronouncement concerning the 
origin of man's body. Theologians do not deny the 
possibility of the human body evolving out of the 
ape body. However, since science has as yet furnished 
no satisfactory argument, in favor of the theory, the 
Church prefers to abide by the obvious sense of 
Scripture and forbids anyone to affirm the evolution-
ary theory as a fact while speaking in her name. 
Her attitude in this regard was made sufficiently 
clear when the Roman Congregation ordered two 
writers, Zahn and LeRoy, who defended a similar 
theory, to withdraw their books from the market. 
As the Dominican scholar, Father E. Hugon of Rome, 
writes: "It is a doctrine altogether to be adhered to 
that the bodies of our first parents were immediate-
ly formed by God. The Church has not strictly 
defined anything on this matter, but nevertheless it 
must be borne in mind that the Roman Congrega-
tions command the works of LeRoy and Zahn to 
be withdrawn" (7) 

Should science at some future date demonstrate 
beyond the shadow of a doubt that man's body is 
derived from-an animal body, the scientific truth 
would indicate how we are to understand the state-
ment in Genesis. Since both natural and revealed 
truths have God for their author, the truths of one 
domain cannot be in contradiction with those of the 
other. 

The Church does not believe in hitching her 
(7) Dc Deo Creatore (Paris, 1924), Vol. 5, p. 136. 



38 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

chariot to a shooting star. She sees the danger in 
the tendency continually to accommodate Biblical 
and dogmatic truths to the passing scientific fads 
of the day. Horace Walpole gives us a long list of 
the scientific -dogmas of his own time, all of which 
have since been quietly dropped. Will not modern 
science make much the same impression a few gen-
erations hence? 

Origin Of Eve 

According to the Book of Genesis, "The Lord 
God said: It is not good for man to be alone; let us 
make him a help like unto himself" (Genesis 2-18). 
Among the things which God had created "there 
was not found for Adam a helper like himself" (Gen-
esis 2:20). God thereupon produced Adam's com-
panion by a special act which the Book of Genesis 
describes in the following terms: "Then the Lord 
God cast a deep sleep upon Adam, and when he was 
fast asleep, He took one of his ribs, and filled up 
flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which 
He took from Adam into a woman, and brought her 
to Adam. And Adam said: this now is bone of my 
bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 
woman because she was taken out of man. Where-
fore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall 
cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh" 
(Genesis 2-21-24). In this passage the Bible clearly 
teaches that a "rib" of Adam was fashioned into a 
complete woman. On the strength of Adam's words, 
"this now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," 
some scholars interpret—and perhaps more correct-
ly—the term "rib" to mean a "portion of Adam's 
body." It is in Adam's body that God seeks the germ 
of his companion; and Adam is said to have rec-



THE ORIGIN OF MAN 39 

ognized immediately the fact that Eve originated 
from him. 

The formation of the first woman from the first 
man is taught so plainly in both Scripture and Tra-
dition that the Biblical Commission unhesitatingly 
affirms the doctrine to be historically and literally 
true. 

When sanctioning the return to the indissolu-
bility of marriage our Lord appeals to Genesis 2:24. 
The primitive institution of monogamy is implied 
in the fact that one woman was created for one 
man. St. Paul bases important truths, both dog-
matic and moral, on Eve's origin from Adam. Cath-
olic tradition has always seen in the origin of Eve 
the prophetic image of the Church originating from 
Christ dying on the cross. In this mystic sense, the 
historical account signifies that the Church can only 
take its origin from Christ; that the Church is so 
closely united to Christ that it forms with Him one 
single body; and that in accordance with the image 
of this union, husband and wife, in the kingdom of 
Christ as in the state of original justice, will be 
united by the closest ties. 

According to St. Thomas (8), Eve's body was 
fashioned in its full perfection by adding new mat-
ter-obtained either through direct creation or more 
probably by the conversion of pre-existing inorganic 
matter—to that derived from Adam. 

In trying to penetrate the full meaning of the 
revealed truth, St. Thomas <9) discovers several rea-
sons why it was fitting that Eve should originate 
from Adam. This procedure, he says, was in full 
harmony with the dignity of the first man, for Adam 

(8) Summa Theologica, I, q. 42, a. 8. 
(9) Summa Theologica, I, q. 42, a. 2. 



40 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

was thus constituted the source of all his species, as 
God is the principle of the whole universe. Second-
ly, man is thus led to love his wife more and attach 
himself more strongly to her, knowing that she 
derives her origin from him. Thirdly, the matri-
monial union is the basis of a common, permanent; 
domestic life in which man is head of the woman, 
and hence it is suitable that woman should be formed 
from man as from her principle. Lastly, the origin 
of Eve prefigures the origin of the Church from 
Christ. 

To these four Thomistic arguments the follow-
ing may be added: Since Adam was constituted head 
of the human race in regard to the supernatural and 
preternatural endowments of human nature, it was 
fitting that Eve—like the rest of men for whom they 
were intended—should inherit these gifts by physical 
origin from Adam. 

The formation of Eve from Adam's "side," says 
St. Thomas, indicates that woman was not to dom-
inate over man, nor on the other hand, be a slave 
to man, but that she was to "stand at his side" as a 
faithful companion and helpmate in all the circum-
stances and vicissitudes of life. 

Discussion Aids 
Set I 

1. Can the human soul be derived from some-
thing material or out of the animal soul 
(animal life) ? 

2. Enumerate five differences between the hu-
man soul and the animal soul. 

3. When is the soul created? 
4. Prove from the Bible that the soul is spir-

itual. Immortal. 



STATE OF PRIMITIVE JUSTICE 41 

5. What does moderate evolution say about the 
origin of man's body? 

6. Can this theory of moderate evolution be re-
conciled with Scripture? 

7. If the human soul entered the ape body, what 
became of the animal soul? 

8. What are the differences between the human 
body and the ape body? 

9. Name the missing links. 
10. Does Catholic thought admit progression? 
11. Is it heretical to hold the ape-origin of man's 

body? 
12. Should science demonstrate the ape-origin 

of man's body, would this prove Genesis to 
be wrong? 

II 
1. What Scriptural passage tells - us of Eve's 

origin? 
2. What is probably the meaning of the word 

"rib"? 
3. What truths are based on the doctrine of 

Eve's origin from Adam? 
4. How was the rest of Eve's body formed ? 
5. Why was Eve formed from Adam's side? 

Religious Practices 
1. I will not dishonor by sin the image .of God 

in my soul or in the soul of my neighbor. 
2. I will mortify all the desires of the flesh 

which are opposed to my higher nature, the 
soul. 

3. I will have a great respect for thabody which 
is the Temple of the Holy Ghost, is sanctified 
by the Eucharist, and is destined for a glor-
ious resurrection. 



Chapter V 

State of Primitive Justice 
Before the Fall our first parents possessed— 

over and above the natural elements of soul and 
body—privileges of other and higher orders; name-
ly, the extraordinary or preternatural, and super-
natural gifts. The "preternatural" gifts—which 
are designated by this title because they are "above" 
the nature of man though natural to the angels— 
are the following: freedom from concupiscence, free-
dom from ignorance, and freedom from death and 
suffering. The supernatural gifts transcend all 
created and creatable beings, and consist in the in-
dwelling of the Blessed Trinity, actual and sanc-
tifying grace, and the Beatific Vision. 

Supernatural Gifts 
Christ, the Second Adam, came to restore to us 

the prerogatives which we lost in the first Adam. 
St. Paul tells us that "by a man came death, and 
by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in 
Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made 
alive" (I Corinthians 15:21, 22); "For as by the dis-
obedience of man many were made sinners, so by 
the obedience of one many shall be made just" (Ro-
mans 5:19). The process by which Christ restored 
to us the gifts forfeited by Adam is called a redemp-
tion, renovation, regeneration, reconciliation, and 
renewal of the first alliance. This restoration or 
redemption is synonymous with the infusion of 
sanctifying grace: "Being justified freely by His 
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus" (Romans 3:24). 



STATE OF PRIMITIVE JUSTICE 43 

Since Christ merited for us and restored to us 
sanctifying grace, it follows that Adam lost this gift 
in the Fall and that he was constituted in the state 
of sanctifying grace before the Fall. The Fathers 
of the Church—Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyprian, 
Jerome, Augustine—confirm this interpretation 
when they teach that Adam's soul before the Fall 
was the temple of the Holy Ghost and of sanctifying 
grace and that these prerogatives were restored to 
us by the Redemption. 

Scripture makes no distinction between the 
grace conferred upon Adam and the grace merited 
for us by Christ; hence, whatever is true of the 
latter is also true of the former. How absolutely 
supernatural Christ's grace is, appears from the 
effects which it produces. 

1. Man by his nature is a servant of God; 
sanctifying graces make us the adopted sons of 
God: "Behold what manner of charity the Father 
hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, 
and should be the sons of God" (I John 3:1). Adop-
tion is always the free and unmerited assumption of-
a stranger into the family. Yet, in legal adoption 
the blood of the adopting father never flows in the 
veins of the adopted child. What an absolutely su-
pernatural privilege, then, for us, to be adopted as 
sons by a heavenly Father and have in our souls the 
very life of God Himself! 

2. Again, the soul of itself is something natural; 
through grace it receives a dignity which for us. 
poor mortals is always a sublime, supernatural pre-
rogative, namely, deification: "By whom He hath 
given us most great and precious promises, that by 
these you may be made partakers of the divine 
nature" (II Peter 1:4). 



4 4 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

3. Man of his own natural mental powers knows 
God imperfectly and indirectly through created 
things. Through, grace, however, he becomes re-
motely capable of one day seeing God face to face: 
We shall see Him as He is" (I John 3:2) For a 

creature to be admitted through grace into this 
light inaccessible" which God inhabiteth (I Tim-

othy 6:16), is indeed a gratuitous and supernatural 
gift. . 

All the qualities which reveal the supernatural 
character of Christ's grace at the same time es-
tablish the absolutely supernatural character of the 
state m which Adam was constituted. 

Preternatural Gifts 
Freedom from Concupiscence 

Before the Fall the senses and imagination 
ot our first parents were perfectly subject to rea-
S?n;, T h e 7 d l d n o t Precede nor resist the commands 
ot the will. There was a complete subordination 
of the lower faculties to the higher, and the'latter 
were m turn wholly subject to God. Genesis tells us 
that before the Fall our first parents were not 
ashamed of their nakedness :'"And they were both 
naked, to wit, Adam and his wife, and were not 
ashamed (Genesis 2:25). Our first parents were 
not blind before the F a l l - a s some ancient authors • 
maintained—nor were they devoid of all shame. But 
their sensitive impulses were wholly subject to their 
reason, their nakedness excited no inordinate desire 
they experienced no lust of the flesh. This teaching 
of the Book of Genesis is confirmed by the Pauline 
doctrine that concupiscence entered into the world 
with Adam s transgression (Romans 5 and 7) • hence 
prior to the Fall concupiscence did not exist E 



STATE OF PRIMITIVE JUSTICE 45 

the Council of Trent says, concupiscence springs 
from original sin and inclines to actual sin. 

Concupiscence flows naturally from man's con-
dition and constitution. His sense faculties are 
often attracted immoderately by their own circle of 
sensitive goods. They strive after their own satis-
faction in a manner opposed to right reason. In all 
such cases there arises a struggle between the flesh 
and the mind, between matter and spirit, so that the 
will attains the higher spiritual good only by dint 
of vigorous resistance. The perfect subordination 
of the lower faculties to the higher, the neutraliza-
tion of all inordinate tendencies of human nature by 
means of a gift—the freedom from concupiscence— 
was for Adam a special preternatural privilege and 
blessing. What was natural to man but neutralized 
and removed by a gift, was unfortunately reintro-
duced into humanity by the transgression of Adam. 
The loss of the gift of freedom from concupiscence, 
as a result of the transgression of God's command-
ment, is narrated in Genesis 3:6-11: "And the wom-
an saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the 
eyes, and delightful to behold ; and she took of the 
fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband 
who did eat. And the eyes of them both were open-
ed ; and when they perceived themselves to be naked, 
they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves 
aprons. And when they heard the voice of the Lord 
God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam 
and his wife hid themselves from the face of the. 
Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. And the 
Lord God called Adam, and said to him : Where are 
thou? And he said: I heard Thy voice in paradise, 
and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid 
myself. And He said to him: And who hath told 



46 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten 
of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou 
shouldst not eat?" 

Freedom From Ignorance 

The existence of this gift is deduced from all 
those Scriptural passages in which Adam is rep-
resented as the physical and moral head of the whole 
human race (Romans 5:12-19 ; I Corinthians 15:21, 
22). As head of the human race Adam was destined 
to be its guide and teacher. Adam could not grasp 
the significance of his office and fulfill his duties 
unless he was endowed with proportionate knowl-
edge. He could not acquire this knowledge imme-
diately by his own powers. He had no parents or 
teacher to give him the necessary instruction. On 
the other hand, when God confers an office upon 
someone, He gives him adequate help to fulfill it. 
Hence, Adam had infused knowledge, that is, a 
knowledge which is not acquired by experience or 
study but placed directly into the mind by God Him-
self. 

This infused knowledge was of two kinds— 
supernatural and natural. Since Adam was con-
stituted in a supernatural state and destined ul-
timately for the Beatific Vision, he had to have 
sufficient knowledge of" the means of preserving the 
state of grace—such as internal acts of faith, hope, 
and charity—and of attaining his final end. This 
infused supernatural knowledge comprised the doc-
trines of God as author of the Beatific Vision, heaven 
and hell, and probably the Blessed Trinity and the 
Incarnation. Adam, however, did not have the 
Beatific Vision while on earth, nor did he see in-
tuitively his own soul or the angels. 



STATE OF PRIMITIVE JUSTICE 47 

That Adam had infused natural knowledge is 
evident from the fact that he forthwith clearly dis-
tinguished one from another the various animals of 
Paradise and attributed to each a proper name: 
"And the Lord God having formed out of the ground 
all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the 
air, brought them to Adam to see what he would 
call them, for whatsoever Adam called any living 
creature the same is its name. And Adam called all 
the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the 
air, and all the cattle of the field" (Genesis 2:19, 
20). Again, the fact that God bade Adam to manage 
and preserve Paradise, implies that Adam was en-
dowed with sufficient knowledge for the execution 
of the divine command. Adam's understanding of 
the nature and mission of Eve must likewise be at-
tributed to infused knowledge. 

Although received directly from God, Adam's 
infused natural knowledge was in its intrinsic nature 
the same as our acquired knowledge. Although re-
ceived independently of sense-experience, this in-
fused natural knowledge was used by Adam in con-
nection with experience. _ It comprised only such 
knowledge as was indispensable for himself and for 
his descendants to lead the life which God had traced 
out for them. It did not dispense Adam from learn-
ing, inquiring, and progressing in matters of science 
and culture. For there is no reason for assuming 
that Adam was acquainted with all the discoveries 
of modern science as, for example, the X-rays, stel-
lar parallaxes,, spectrum analysis, etc. If there is 
any typical exemplar to which Adam's natural 
knowledge might be compared, it would not be the 
human knowledge of our Lord but rather the wisdom 
of Solomon. 



48 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Freedom from ignorance implies, furthermore, 
a special rectitude, sharpness, and promptness of 
the intellect, enabling man to acquire knowledge 
easily. In this regard it is intimately associated 
with and dependent upon the gift of freedom from 
concupiscence. For distraction, error, and ignorance 
are frequently due to the predominance of passion 
and prejudice over right reason and truth. 

Adam's naming of the fowls and animals fre-
quently raises the question of the origin of speech. 
Some authors maintain that Adam received a lan-
guage ready-made by a miraculous infusion from 
God. Some go so far as to assert that Adam re-
ceived the Hebrew language directly from God as 
a perfect medium of speech. This view, however, is 
hardly tenable. For comparative philology shows 
that the ancient Hebrew is a product of a well-de-
fined process of evolution and hence could not have 
been the original language of the human race. Most 
authors prefer to credit man with all the powers he 
is able to exert. Adam possessed a highly developed 
intellect. He created his own language by forming 
monosyllabic uninflected root-words. A study of 
ancient root-words shows that the names which 
Adam gave to various creatures are in each case 
based on some characteristic note of the object. 

Freedom From Death And Suffering 
It is of faith that our first parents before the 

Fall were endowed with bodily immortality. This 
state was a prerogative intermediate between the 
natural immortality of the soul and the glorious 
bodily immortality to be enjoyed by the elect after 
the final resurrection. It was peculiar to the prim-
itive state of justice. Adam was bodily immortal 
not because he could not die but because it was not 



STATE OF PRIMITIVE JUSTICE 49 

necessary that he should die. The natural tendency 
of the body toward death, dissolution, and corrup-
tion was neutralized by a gift, but reintroduced into 
humanity as a penalty by Adam's Fall. 

The Book of Wisdom teaches this doctrine ex-
plicitly and directly when it says: "God created man 
incorruptible, and to the image of His own likeness 
He made him. But by the envy of the devil, death 
came into the world" (Wisdom 2:23, 24). Under 
penalty of death God had forbidden our first parents 
to eat of the tree of knowledge^ "For in what day 
soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death" 
(Genesis 2:17), that is, as soon as Adam would eat 
of the forbidden fruit, he would become subject to 
death. After the Fall God pronounced sentence as 
follows: "In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat 
bread, till thou return to the earth, out of which 
thou was taken; for dust thou art and unto dust 
thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19). St. Paul rep-
resents the death of Adam and of all his descendants 
as a divinely inflicted punishment for sin: "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" (Romans 5:12). From all these testimonies 
it is quite clear that, had Adam never sinned, he 
would not have been under the necessity of dying. 

How would this bodily immortality have been 
preserved and maintained by our first parent? Adam 
would have been protected against a violent death 
by a careful use of his infused knowledge, by a 
proper exercise of his reason, and by an observance 
of moderation and prudence in all things. Divine 
Providence, too, would have removed obstacles which 
might cause Adam unexpected harm. Adam would 
also have been preserved from disease, old age, and 



50 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

a natural death. The struggles between the mind 
and the flesh which gradually lead to a certain wear 
and tear, to a diminution of man's bodily vigor, and 
to sickness and death, would have been absent in our 
first parents because of the gift of freedom from 
concupiscence. Secondly, Adam would have par-
taken of the tree of life which would have kept up 
the forces and strength of this body (Genesis 3:22). 

Intimately related with the gift of bodily im-
mortality is the gift of freedom from suffering. Here 
again it is important to distinguish between the 
bodily impassibility which will belong to the elect 
after the day of resurrection and that which was 
proper to the state of primitive justice; the former 
will be an incapability of suffering, the latter was 
a nonnecessity of suffering. Impassibility follows as 
a corollary from bodily immortality. The bodily im-
mortality with which God endowed our first parents 
necessarily excluded all those sufferings and infirm-
ities which are the harbingers of death. The gift 
of freedom from concupiscence in turn stopped ef-
fectively the principal source of mental sorrow and 
temptation. The happy state of our first parents is 
indicated by the Biblical description of Paradise as 
a "garden of pleasure" (Genesis 2:8). The Golden 
Age—so enthusiastically celebrated in the folklore 
of so many nations—in which men were happy and 
free from suffering, sorrow, and sin, is a faint echo 
of the bliss of our first parents in Paradise Suffer-
ings and humiliating labors are represented by Scrip-
ture (Genesis 3:16) as beginning only after the 
V all and hence as nonexistent before the Fall 

Freedom from sufferings and death is a special 
privilege conferred by God upon man. Insofar as it 
is sensitive, human nature is naturally exposed to un-



STATE OF PRIMITIVE JUSTICE 51 

pleasant sensations and consequently to suffering. 
Death, too, arises naturally from two sets of causes: 
internal—physical exhaustion, disease, and old age, 
external injuries. The natural effects of these causes 
were impeded and neutralized in Adam before the 
Fall by a gratuitous gift—but, unfortunately rein-
troduced into humanity as a penalty of sin by Adam's 
transgression. 

Dominion Over Lower Creation 
In enumerating the prerogatives enjoyed by 

Adam in Paradise the Roman Catechism attributes 
to our first parent a certain dominion over brute 
creation and over-the forces of nature. - This teach-
ing is well supported by the Book of Genesis: "And 
He said: Let Us make man to Our image and like-
ness, and let him have dominion over the fishes of 
the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts and 
the whole earth" (Genesis 1:26 ff). Adam's power 
over creation was due in part to his superior knowl-
edge and to the penetrating sharpness of his intel-
lect. For has not the intellect of even fallen man 
performed marvels—especially within the past fifty 
years of scientific progress—in subjugating the 
forces of nature to man's control? The primitive 
harmony in creation, as St. Paul insinuates in his 
Epistle to the Romans (Roman 8:22), was disturbed 
and broken by the sin of Adam. T h # original do-
minion over irrational ereation was restored to us 
through Christ's merits in only a limited degree and 
by way of exception to certain of the" saints as, for 
example, St. Francis of Assisi. 

Discussion Aids 
1. What three kinds of gifts did Adam possess 

before the Fall? 



54 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

2. Who restored to us the gifts lost in Adam? 
3. What did Christ restore to us? 
4. Give 3 arguments to show that sanctifying 

grace is something absolutely supernatural. 
5. Enumerate the preternatural gifts? 
6. In what precisely consisted the gift of free-

dom from concupiscence? 
7. Why was this a preternatural gift and not a 

natural state? 
8. How was this gift lost? 
9. Why was Adam free from ignorance? 

10. What two kinds of infused knowledge did 
Adam possess? 

11. Did Adam know everything? 
12. How did speech originate? 
13. What is meant by freedom from death and 

suffering? 
14. Prove from Scripture that Adam had this 

gift. 
15. How was this gift preserved and maintained? 
16. Prove that Adam was free from suffering. 
17. Prove that Adam had dominion over nature 

and brute creation. 

Religious Practices 
1. I will strive to develop the many natural 

gifts*%which God has bestowed upon me, in 
the service of God and of my neighbor. 

2. I will strive by mortification and self-denial, 
and with the help of God's grace, to establish 
a mastery over my body, senses, and imagi-
nation. 

3. I will be careful never to lose the presence of 
the Blessed Trinity in my soul by committing 
mortal sin. 



Chapter V I 

The Fall 
The Period Of Probation 

Adam is said to have brought misfortune upon 
the whole human race by the pilfering of an apple. 
"How absurd," cries the unbeliever. What is even 
more absurd, however, is the interpretation of the 
Biblical narrative which such a sneer implies and 
contains. The Bible says that our first parents had 
to undergo a trial just as the angels did. For it is 
becoming that no free being should obtain a cro'Wn 
until he has merited it. Adam and Eve were to en-
joy the delights of the earthly Paradise and at the 
end of their terrestrial career were to be transferred 
to heaven without dying:—and at the same time see 
their bodies glorified—on one condition, namely, 
that they observe the commandment which God had 
imposed upon them. But Satan, who by a prophetic 
instinct knew that a woman would one day crush 
his head, was bent on the ruin of Eve: "By the envy 
of the devil death came into the world" (Wisdom 
2:24). Eve sinned and in turn induced Adam, the 
head of the human race, to fall : "From the woman 
came the beginning of sin and by her we all die" 
(Ecclesiasticus 25:33). 

The Fall And Original Sin 
When speaking of the sin of Adam we must 

carefully distinguish between the Fall and original 
sin. The Fall is Adam's personal act, his mortal 
sin of pride and transgression of the divine com-
mandment. Original sin is a sinful state. The act 
is the cause of the state. Adam transmits to his 



54 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

descendants—through the channels of physical gen-
eration—the state but not the act. Men inherit or 
contract original sin and a state of guilt but not the 
Fall. In the present chapter we are concerned only 
with Adam's personal sin. 

The Fall Not A Sensual Sin 
As long as Adam was in the state of primitive 

justice, the body was perfectly subject to the soul, 
the lower faculties to reason, and reason, through 
sanctifying grace, to God—the last subjection being 
the cause of the first and second, and the source of 
the perfect harmony in Adam's whole being. As 
long as reason remained subject to God, a deordi-
nation in man's sensitive appetite was impossible. 
In other words, Adam's first sin could not have been 
a sensual sin. The possibility of a sinful deordina-
tion in Adam is consequently to be sought in the 
spiritual domain. In order that Adam might merit, 
serve, and glorify God, he had to be endowed with 
liberty. While Adam's will was free, it was also a 
created will, subject to the Divine Will as to its 
norm of action. But wherever one will is subject 
to another, a defection of the one from the other 
always remains possible. God alone is impeccable 
because His Will is not subject to a higher will but 
is its own rule of action. 

Nature Of The Fall 
Adam and Eve committed, first of all, an in-

ternal mortal sin of pride. They wished to be like 
unto God: they wished to decide and determine oi 
their own powers what was good and evil; they 
wished to Rpssess sanctifying grace and heaven as 
something due to them because of their own per-
sonal merits and not as a gratuitous gift of God. 



THE FALL 55 

In other words, our first parents asserted their inde-
pendence of the divine will and took complacence in 
their own self-sufficiency. The sinof our first parents 
was all the more heinous because they acted with 
full knowledge and strength of will. They had come 
forth perfect from the hands of God and in this 
state of perfection they turned against Him. 

The disobedience—or the transgression of the 
commandment—was a result and an outward mani-
festation of their inward pride. It presupposed that 
the will was already turned away from God. That 
our first parents received a precept from God, is a 
matter of Catholic faith. Scholars, however, discuss 
the question whether the phrase, "tree of knowledge 
of good and evil " (Genesis-2:17), is to be_ taken as 
a popular expression of the truth that Adam and 
Eve were subject to a divine command, or whether 
it is to be interpreted literally as referring to one 
of the trees in Paradise (Genesis 3:3). The literal 
seems to be the only acceptable explanation. Since 
God was dealing with the human race in its first 
beginnings, His precept would most likely refer to 
an object within the immediate experience of our 
first parents—such as a tree in the garden of Para-
dise—and not to some remote abstract reality. It 
is worthy of note in this connection that the Biblical 
narrative does not refer specifically to an "apple" 
or an "appletree." How grave in the eyes of God 
was this precept, by which God wished to exact 
from man a tribute of subordination and obedience, 
is evident from the fact that God attached to its 
transgression the gravest of all penalties—death. 

Satan And The Fall 

According to the Biblical account, Eve was 



66 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

tempted by Satan who appeared to her through the 
instrumentality of a serpent. The devil is a fallen 
angel and consequently a pure spirit. In his purely 
spiritual nature the devil cannot utter audible sounds 
nor is he perceptible by the bodily senses; to be able 
to do either, Satan would be obliged to assume a 
sensible, bodily, visible form. In the temptation of 
our first parents Satan used the body of a serpent 
for the accomplishment of his designs. The devil 
produced the words in the serpent's mouth by moving 
its tongue in the required manner; this was not a 
vital act of the serpent since it did not proceed from 
a really intrinsic principle; at any rate, the devil 
produced the vocal sounds in the ears of Eve in such 
a manner that Eve referred them to the serpent's 
mouth. 

God's words to the serpent—"upon thy breast 
shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of 
thy life" (Genesis 3 :14)—imply that the serpent's 
creeping on his breast and devouring the dust of the 
earth will henceforth have the character of a pen-
alty and of a lasting symbol of the effects of sin. 
These two characteristics of the serpent's behaviour 
are lifewise symbolical of humiliation and confusion; 
applied to Satan, who assumed the form of the ser-
pent, they foretoken that Satan will eventually be 
humiliated and crushed. 

At this point, the following question is some-
times raised; Why did not the unusual phenomenon 
of a serpent speaking put Eve on her guard? Some 
explain the absence of Eve's surprise by contending 
that before the Fall all animals had the power of 
speech or that before the Fall man understood ani-
mal language. A better explanation seems to be 



THE FALL 57 

that Eve had not yet learned the restriction of the 
faculty of speech to man. Her infused knowledge 
was not necessarily as extensive as that given to 
Adam. The deception of Adam is more difficult to 
explain because of his superior intelligence and 
wealth of infused knowledge. However, this great-
ness of knowledge was well-nigh equalled by the love 
which he had for his wife. Satan—who assaults his 
victims from their weak side—brought about Adam's 
fall by making use of his pure love for Eve. 

The great German anthropologist, Dr. J. Feld-
mann (1>, has shown that the Golden Age, described 
in the folklore of many peoples, represents a faint 
recollection of the state of our first parents In Par-
adise. The mythologies, proverbs, and poems of all 
the ancient nations echo brokenly the story of a 
garden the gates of which were closed because man 
rebelled against God. The Chinese proverbs tell 
of a cloudburst of sorrow which had drenched the 
earth because man rebelled against God. According 
to a Greek saying, woman was the cause of all mis-
fortune. The 'Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, 
and Italians are all aware of Paradise and of the 
Sacred Tree. The poets of Italy and Greece recall 
an age when men were happy, when sorrow and 
sickness were strangers, when men were the fa-
vorites of God. These facts show that the dire 
calamity of the Fall remained burned in man's mem-
ory, could not easily be forgotten, and was recounted 
with pathos to every rising generation. So real and 
so truly historical is the Fall that no matter how 
far man strayed into pagan lands the recollection of 
it went with him. 

(1) Paradies und Sündenfall (Munster, W. 1913) 



58 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Effects Of The Fall 
The effects of the Fall are the best proof of the 

seriousness of the sin of our first parents. The re-
lation of sonship which preceded the Fall was, ac-
cording to the book of Genesis, changed into enmity. 
By committing a mortal sin Adam and Eve lost sanc-
tifying grace, for, as S t Paul, says, "what partici-
pation hath justice with injustice, what fellowship 
hath light with darkness" (II Corinthians 6:14). The 
Blessed Trinity no longer made its abode in their 
soul. The gift of freedom from concupiscence was 
likewise no longer theirs . After the Fall they be-
came aware of the fact that their flesh was rebelling 
against the spirit: "The eyes of them both were 
opened and when they perceived themselves to be 
naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made 
themselves aprons" (Genesis 3:7). They became 
subject to the law of death : "Dust thou art and into 
dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3 :19). They, were 
deprived of their terrestrial happiness, expelled from 
the garden of pleasure, and made subject to suf-
ferings and labors : "In the sweat of they face thou 
shalt eat bread . . . . In sorrow thou shalt bring 
forth children" (Genesis 3:16-20). In fact, Adam 
spent nine hundred years of penance among the 
brambles of a lonely world in atonement for his 
sin. Remember, too, that these effects passed on all 
men with original sin. 

Salvation Of Our First Parents 
Did our first parents obtain a pardon for their 

sin? Scripture clearly indicates that they did: Wis-
dom "brought the first man out of his sin" (Wis-
dom 10:1-2). Did they obtain salvation? St. Augus-
tine tells us that the Church in his time taught that 



THE FALL 59 

the limbo of the just. When a writer, at the end of 
the second century, maintained that Adam was 
numbered among the damned, he was severely re-
buked by the Fathers of the Church. Adam and Eve 
were saved by faith in the future Redeemer Who 
was promised to them immediately after the Fall. 
The Eastern Church celebrates the Feast of Adam 
and Eve on the Sunday before Christmas, the West-
ern Church on December 24. 

Discussion Aids 
1. Explain the period of probation of our first 

parents. 
2. What is the difference between the Fall and 

original sini 
3. Could Adam's first sin have been a sensual 

sin? Why? 
4. What was the first sin Adam and Eve com-

mitted? 5. How did this sin manifest itself externally? 
6. How did Satan tempt Eve? 
7. How explain the punishment of the serpent? 
8. Why did Eve experience no surprise at the 

Speaking of a serpent?, 
9. How xplain the deception of Adam and Eve? 

10. Does the folklore of peoples throw any light 
on the Fall? 

11. What were the effects of the Fall? 
12. Were our first parents pardoned and saved? 

Religious Practices 

1. I will frequently recall the proverb: "We 
cannot play with fire without getting 
burned." 

2. Knowing that I have inherited from Adam 



BIBLICAL QUESTIONS 

a fallen human nature, I will put my trust 
not in myself but in the grace of God. 
I will frequently recall the words of the 
Liturgy of Holy Saturday: "0 happy fault 
which merited such and so great a Redeem-
er." 



Chapter V I I 

The Fallen State in the Light of 
Science 

The Fäll And Science 

According to Catholic doctrine, the first man 
was created in a state of perfection and endowed 
with extensive knowledge. From this fair estate 
man fell to an inferior mode of existence and grad-
ually sank into idolatry and paganism- Modern 
science, on the other hand, insists that man began 
in a low state of barbarism and become civilized 
only after many centuries. A few quotations will 
help to illustrate this modern viewpoint. Thus Mr. 
Thompson says: "We are no longer as those who 
look back to a paradise in which man fell; we are 
rather as those who rowing hard against the stream 
see distant gates of Eden gleam" (1). Another evolu-
tionist, L. Abbott, writes: "Every man is two men— 
a centaur, part animal, part man. Some have al-
most outgrown the animal, and some have a very 
small man's head on a very large beast's body" (2) 

Still another describes primitive man as a "miser-
able, half-starved, naked wretch, just emerged from 
the bestial condition, torn with fierce passions, and 
fighting his way among his compeers with lowbrow 
cunning, who has not even a glimmer of a right 
knowledge of God." In brief, then, while Catholic 
doctrine represents man as falling from a higher 
to a lower state, modern science pictures him as 

(1) Bible of Nature (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 226 
(2) The Theology of an Evolutionist (London, 1897), p. 48. 



62 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

slowly ascending from a barbarous to a civilized 
condition. 

The modern viewpoint is based on the supposi-
tion that man has evolved from the monkey. This 
ape-theory, however, is devoid of any foundation in 
fact. Despite the examining of maps and the ex-
cavating of bones; despite the large sums of money 
spent yearly in digging for vestiges of our simian 
ancestors, despite the exploring of pits, caves, and 
ocean bottoms, the hypothesis of man's evolution 
from the brute still remains unproved. The missing 
link is still missing. In. their embarrassment cer-
tain evolutionists, like Haeckel, have attempted to 
remove the ape-theory from the domain of science 
by maintaining that the "missing link" had his 
habitat in Lemuria,a continent now in the depths 
of the Indian Ocean, far out of the excavator's reach. 
But what true scientist will pay any heed to the 
reveries of such unscientific minds? 

The state of innocence, which preceded the 
Fall, lasted only a short time, and no vestige of it 
remains. Science can know nothing about I t and 
hence cannot be opposed to the Bible on this point. 
Again, the ancient and universal popular traditions 
and folklore concerning a golden age confirm the 
Mosaic narrative rather than the hypothesis of a 
primitive state of barbarism. On the other hand, 
Scripture does not deny progress in the discovery of 
the arts. Adam had an intellect which had to de-
velop in the same way as it develops today. On this 
point Scripture and science are in perfect agree-
ment. . 

A careful examination jof the most ancient hu-
man skulls points to a much higher intellectual 
power m ancient man and is confirmed, in addition 



THE FALLEN STATE IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE 63 

by the recently discovered vestiges of human art. We 
must remember,, too, that the first invention re-
quired more intellectual acumen than a mere adapta-
tion and perfecting of existing inventions. The fact 
that among primitive men we find some individuals 
of inferior intellectual capacity offers no difficulty, 
since these exceptions are found even among the 
highly civilized people of today. 

Secondly, Scripture teaches that Adam had a 
sufficient knowledge of religious and moral truths to 
instruct his children and to attain his final end. In 
this regard the Bible is likewise confirmed by sci-
ence. Recent authors are agreed that the monu-
ments, statues, and sepulchers, which primitive man 
has left us, point to religiousness as the first and 
essential attribute of human nature. No tribe has 
as yet been found in which religion was lacking. 

The barbarous tribes of today are neither the 
remnants of primitive man nor the witness of his 
inferior condition. Many a .tribe which today lives 
in a very degraded condition once enjoyed a high 
degree of civilization. The inferior condition in 
which these tribes live is frequently due to moral 
corruption. Again, many tribes which have been or. 
are very barbarous are those which were separated 
from the • center - of civilization and obliged to in-
habit remote parts of the earth. The disagreeable 
climate , and sterility of the earth impeded all de-
velopment of the fine arts. Hence, if people who 
three thousand years ago enjoyed a very high de-
gree of civilization are today in a state of barbarism, 
in like manner, our first parents could very well 
have been1 endowed with excellent intellectual gifts 
and yet their posterity could after a time fall into .a 
condition of barbarism. 



64 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Furthermore, many tribes which today live in 
an inferior state of civilization have a lofty concep-
tion of the Deity and a rather high moral standard. 
A low degree of material culture cannot be adduced 
as an argument against the existence of morality. 

Death And Science 
Among the many and degrading consequences 

of the Fall, death is in a particular manner attrib-
uted by the Bible to sin. Before discussing death 
as a penalty of sin, we should note that the sacred 
writers, especially St. Paul, distinguished three other 
kinds of death: (1) Spiritual death, which is used 
to denote the religious and moral atrophy of man 
in his sinful, pagan, unregenerate condition; though 
the soul is immortal, yet man in this state is dead 
as far as the Beatific Vision is concerned. <2) Bap-
tismal death, which is an engrafting in baptism into 
the dying Christ, an incorporation into Christ at 
the very moment that He saves us: "We are buried 
together with Him by baptism into-death" (Romans 
6:3-7); baptism is not Purely a figurative rite and 
symbol, but really deadens in us sin and the "old 
man," and infuses new life into the soul. (3) Mys-
tical death, inseparably united to the preceding is 
a crucifixion of the flesh so that we may no longer 
hve in bondage to sin, to the world, and to the 
earthly attachment of the heart. 

But it is the punitive aspect of death against 
which pseudoscience protests. God declared to our 
first parents in Paradise that subjection to the law 
of death would be the penalty of the transgression 
of the commandment, "Of the tree of knowledge of 
good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day 
soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death" 
(Genesis 2:17). St. Paul explicitly tells us that death 



THE FALLEN STATE IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE 65 

entered into the world by sin, that all die because 
they have sinned in Adam (Romans 5-12-21). Now, 
it is especially the evolutionists who object to this 
revealed doctrine. Death, it is categorically laid 
down, is a natural law to which all organisms are 
subject. Man, therefore, must share the fate of 
other living beings: he must grow, decay, and die. 
The view that Adam before the Fall was endowed 
with the gift of immortality, they tell us, is im-
possible. And if one further raises the question as 
to what is man, the logic of the evolutionary theory 
not infrequently asserts itself in the denial of a 
spiritual soul to which immortality could attach. 
Certain modern critics and theologians unite their 
voices to proclaim that death is a natural necessity 
for animal organisms such as man's, and that before 
man was in the world death prevailed. 

This claim of the pseudo-scientists that man 
would have suffered death as he now does even if 
Adam had not sinned, is beside the point. Science 
has no means-—and never had—of experimenting 
with and examining Adam before the Fall. The 
only man modern science knows is the mortal man 
descended from Adam. To attempt to determine 
from man's present state the condition of Adam 
before the Fall is consequently most illogical. Sec-
ondly, even if before the creation of man death in 
the case of the lower animals was a necessary and 
concomitant condition of their existence, it is not ap-
parent how this is opposed to the doctrine of the 
Bible. For the Bible is speaking of the death of 
man, and if man had not sinned, death would have 
no dominion over him. 

But even in regard to the lower living organ-
isms is death a necessary and universal law? While 



66 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

it is customary to make this assumption, the ques-
tion takes on a new aspect when a biologist of the 
rank of Weissman <3> is found challenging it, and 
declaring that "the origin of death" is "one of the 
most difficult problems in the whole range of physi-
ology." He says, furthermore, that there is no ascer-
tainable reason why, apart from what he considers 
the utility of it, organisms should ever die. As a 
matter of fact, he thinks that an immense number of 
the lower organisms do not die, and has coined the 
phrase, "immortality of the Protozoal Even as re-
gards the higher organisms in which the condition of 
longevity so surprisingly vary, he considers that 
"death is not a primary necessity, but that it has 
been secondarily acquired as an adaptation." Hence, 
it is not at all certain that death is an inherent law 
of organism"; it may well depend on conditions which 
would not have affected sinless man. 

In maintaining that death is a natural neces-
sity for man, modern writers frequently appeal to 
the following Pauline statement: "The first man 
was of the earth, earthly; the second man, from 
heaven, heavenly" (I Corinthians 15:47). In this 
passage St. Paul does, in fact, indicate that the body 
of Adam was created natural, mortal, and subject 
to corruption. But the Apostle does not say that 
Adam, though mortal in himself, did not possess 
before the Fall the preternatural gift of immortality, 
which would have enabled his earthly body to be 
transfigured into the heavenly without its being de-
stroyed by death. The Apostle conceives on the one 
hand as natural to man what on the other he re-
garded as neutralized and removed by privilege but 
reintroduced into humanity by the transgression of 

(3) Essays upon Heredity (Oxford, 1889), Vol. I, pp. 20. 88. 



THE FALLEN STATE IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE 67 

Adam. In I Corinthians 15:47, St. Paul does not 
deny the fact that before the Fall Adam possessed 
the gift of immortality; but wishing to contrast the 
first humanity with the second, he considers it, such 
as it naturally is and was penally since the fall, with-
out paying attention to the state of primitive in-
tegrity through which it passed before Adam's 
transgression. 

Discussion Aids 
Set I 

1. Do the Catholic Church and modern science 
seem to agree in their conception of the 
original state of first man? 

2. On what supposition is the modern view-
point based? Can this supposition be proved? 

3. Can science know anything of the state of 
innocence before the Fall? 

4. Does Scripture deny to Adam intellectual 
progress? 

5. Does science reveal a difference in the brain 
capacity of man and of the brute?. 

6. Does science point to religiousness as an 
ever-present attribute of man ? 

7. Are the barbarous tribes of today remnants 
of primitive man? 

8. Does a low degree of material prosperity in-
dicate an absence of religious and moral 
standards ? 

Set II 
1. Describe the four kinds of deaths. 
2. Against what aspect of death does pseudo-

science protest? Why? 
3. Can science prove that Adam would have 

died, even if he had not sinned ? 



BIBLICAL QUESTIONS 

4. Is death a universal law of living organism? 
5. Does I Corinthian 15:47 prove that death is 

a natural necessity for man? 
Religious Practices 

1. I will try to understand that true culture 
does not consist in material possessions but 
in nobility of mind and heart. 

2. I will accept all sufferings and death itself 
as a penalty of sin. 

3. I will always strive to preserve the supernat-
ural life of my soul in order to assure the 
unending glorious life of the body to which 
my soul will be reunited on the last day. 



Chapter V I I I 

Original Sin 
It is of Catholic faith that all men—except the 

Blessed Virgin Mary—who descend naturally from 
Adam by carnal generation contract original sin at 
the moment of conception. Every man is born into 
the world in a state which—though it does not ex-
clude him from the natural reward of limbo—ex-
cludes him from the supernatural reward of the 
Beatific Vision. . This state consists primarily in the 
privation of sanctifying grace and secondarily in a 
privation of those prerogatives which depended upon 
grace as upon their cause; namely, the perfect sub-
ordination of the body to the soul and of the lower 
faculties to reason. This loss is not a mere absence ; 
it is a privation rendering us guilty and displeasing 
to God who in some way sees in us the sin of Adam, 
the head of the human ' race, and who considers us 
as unfit candidates for heaven. 

The Old Testament 
The doctrine of original sin permeates the whole 

Old Testament. The Book of Genesis makes it clear 
that both Adam and his posterity were deprived of 
God's friendship, bodily immortality, and freedom 
from concupiscence. Adam's transgression, con-
sequently, influenced his descendants as well as him-
self. The many sins and crimes of Old Testament 
personages are so many concrete indications of a 
law which was introduced into humanity by the Fall 
of Adam. The yearnings of the patriarchs and 
prophets for a Saviour proceed from the profound 
conviction that all men have sinned and need the 



70 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

mercy of God. Several passages in the Old Testa-
ment cannot be satisfactorily explained except on 
the supposition of original sin. They are the fol-
lowing: "Who can make him clean that is con-
ceived of unclean seed? Is it not Thou who only 
ar t" Job. 14:4)? "Behold, I was conceived in iniqui-
ties and in sins did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 
50:7). 

The Gospels 

In the Gospels the doctrine of original sin is 
taught in an equivalent manner. Our Lord's fre-
quent exhortations that everyone repent and enter 
into the kingdom of God imply that all men are 
living in a sinful state. Christ again presupposes 
the existence of original sin when He inculcates the 
necessity of baptism for all men without distinction, 
whether infants or adults: "Unless a man be born 
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Only "He who 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 
16:16). 

The Pauline Epistles 
In his Epistle to the Ephesians St. Paul teaches 

that all men were—from their very birth—displeas-
ing to God and living in a sinful state. They were 
objects of the divine wrath because they obeyed the 
"desires and will of the flesh"—because they com-
mitted actual sin. They were sinners "by nature" on 
account of original sin, on account of their fallen 
nature unaided by grace: "We all conversed in time 
past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of 
the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature 
children of wrath, even as the rest" (Ephesians 2:3). 

The classical passage for the dogma of original 



ORIGINAL SIN 71 

sin is found in Romans 5:12-21. In this section St. 
Paul draws a parallel between all and the one, who, 
in one case, is the first Adam as the author of sin 
and death, and, in the other, the second Adam 
(Christ) as the source of grace and salvation. We 
shall emphasize three passages in this very important 
chapter: 

a) "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" (Romans 5:12). In this 
passage St. Paul teaches that death entered into 
.the world as a penalty and as a consequence of 
Adam's transgression. On the other hand, he af-
firms that all men die because they, too, have sin-
ned.- Does the Apostle mean to affirm that all men 
die because they commit actual sins? This is impos-
sible, since even infants—who are incapable of sin-
ning personally—die. Infants suffer the penalty 
of death because they have contracted the sinful 
state of Adam. Since Adam was the representative 
and head of the human race, all men are solidary 
with him in sharing the effects of his transgression, 
and hence all are born with original sin. 

b) "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" (Romans 5:13, 14). St. Paul de-
clares that the men who lived "from Adam unto 
Moses" committed many actual sins. Yet it was 
not on account of these personal sins that men died. 
First of all, these men lived before the Mosaic Law— 
which punished certain personal crimes by death 



72 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

came into effept. Secondly, "Death reigned from 
Adam unto Moses" even over those who, such as in-
fants, were not guilty of actual sin. Hence, death 
was a punishment for the particular sin which en-
tered into the world through the fault of Adam; 
namely, original sin. 

c) "Therefore, as by the offense 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" (Romans 5:18). The human race has by the 
sin of Adam become a race of sinners in the same 
way as by the "justification of life" it has been made 
a race of just men. Now, justification is effected 
by being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost"; 
hence, original sin is inherited and contracted by be-
ing born of Adam. 

Some non-Catholic writers maintain that we 
contract original sin only in the sense that by our 
actual sins we imitate the transgression of Adam. 
If this were true, how could death be said to have 
reigned over all men, since the transgression of 
Adam is known by relatively only a few and fre-
quently exercises no seductive force at all? Is it not 
equally probable that Adam's posterity—instead of 
finding in his example ai> incentive to sin—would 
have experienced a horror of his deed? How, on 
such a hypothesis, could sin be said to be universal ? 
How would Christ be the Redeemer of all men ? 

The Headship of Adam 

Original sin consists primarily in the absence 
of sanctifying grace and secondarily in the loss of 
that prerogative which was rooted in grace; namely, 



ORIGINAL SIN 
75 

the complete subordination of the lower faculties to 
the higher. This loss is more than a mere absence: 
it is a privation, an absence of something which in 
the designs of God the human race was to possess ; 
it has the character of guilt, being in some way vol-
untary and imputable to us because of our connec-
tion with Adam, the head of the human race. God 
in a certain sense sees in us the fault of Adam, our 
common parent. But how are we to explain Adam's 
headship of the human race, and in what sense was 
he our representative? 

Adam is not our head by reason of the natural 
law; otherwise, all the actual sins of Adam would be 
imputable to us, and an unbaptized person be pun-
ished by eternal damnation. Nor did God positively 
inclose our wills in the will of Adam for our wills 
did not as yet actually exist. Did God, then, con-
stitute Adam procurator of the human race by an 
explicit pact or by a positive law? Scripture is silent 
about any such agreement. 

Adam is our head because he is the fountain in 
which all human nature was concentrated, the source 
from which all human nature proceeds. In Adam 
as in a seed was inclosed the whole of human nature 
which in the course of time would unfold and evolve 
itself from him—just as from the seed grows a tree 
with all its branches. God conferred the gift of 
original justice not only upon Adam personally but 
in and through him upon all human nature summed 
up in him. Adam was to retain these sublime pre-
rogatives, which were at once personal and racial, on 
condition that he observed the commandment. In 
the measure in which human nature would have un-
folded itself—through the channels of physical gen-
eration—from its source in Adam, it would have 



74 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

carried along with it and been accompanied by orig-
inal justice. When Adam sinned, he lost the super-
natural and preternatural gifts not only for himself 
but for all human nature inclosed in him. When 
after the Fall human nature began its procession 
down through the successive generations, it began 
that journey without the gifts which in God's 
design it was to enjoy. That these gifts under such 
conditions would be absent from human nature, is 
quite intelligible, but that this absence should - con-
stitute a privation, nay more, a guilt—therein lies 
the mystery of original sin. 

Since the prerogatives which God placed in 
Adam's custody were intended as a boon for the 
whole human race, they could not be regained by 
our first parent once he lost them; there is no pro-
portion between racial gifts and personal individual 
merits. Adam by his repentance regained sancti-
fying grace only for himself personally. To repair a 
racial guilt and restore racial gifts—for this another 
head of the human race will be required, the God-
man, Jesus Christ. 

Propagation Of Original Sin 

How, we may ask, is original sin propagated 
from Adam to his posterity? Can a soul, created by 
the all-holy God from whose hands nothing stained 
can come, be the vehicle of sin? On the other hand, 
can a physical body imprint anything in a spiritual 
substance? This problem may be explained as fol-
lows: As soon as the soul created by God unites it-
self substantially with the material body physically 
generated by the parents, there results a true human 
nature, a real progeny of Adam. At that very mo-
ment, too, this particular human nature begins to 



ORIGINAL SIN 75 

share in the state which fell to the lot of universal 
human nature in and through Adam, the fountain 
and head of the human race. From a muddy spring 
only an impure stream can issue forth. 

Effects Of Original Sin 
The penalties of original sin are practically the 

same for Adam's posterity as they were for Adam 
himself. There is, however, a difference of degree; 
our first parents deserved a severer penalty for their 
actual transgression than their unfortunate descen-
dants who have committed no personal sin but are 
merely tainted by inherited guilt. 

The first effect of original sin in Adam's de-
scendants is the loss of the indwelling of the Holy 
Trinity and of its supernatural concomitants; name-
ly, adoptive sonship, the theological and moral vir-
tues, and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. 

The loss of the preternatural gifts is frequently 
designated as a "wounding" of human nature. A 
wound in general is the severing of parts which hith-
erto have been united. The "wound" of original sin 
is a disrupture of the harmony, subordination, and 
co-ordination of man's faculties and powers, so that 
the body is no longer perfectly subject to the soul 
nor the lower faculties to the higher. This "wound-
ing" of human nature, however, by no means implies 
that man's faculties and powers were intrinsically 
"injured" or "corrupted." All such characterizations 
of the influence of original sin on human nature 
should be carefully avoided as smacking of the Lu-
theran Heresy. When Catholic theologians assert 
that man's faculties were "weakened" by original 
sin, they merely mean that his powers no longer 
function under the favorable conditions and cir-
cumstances which they enjoyed before the Fall. 



76 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Let us now examine more in detail how this 
"wound" affects our human nature. In the body 
the "wound" causes weakness, sufferings, and death. 
In the soul, original sin is said to have inflicted the 
"wound of ignorance" on the intellect and the 
"wound of malice" on the will. Since the body, 
senses, and imagination are no longer perfectly sub-
ject to the will, our intellect in its quest for truth is 
retarded by distractions and divagations and in-
clines to temporal curiosities more than to eternal 
verities; it no longer enjoys that sharpness and 
promptitude which belonged to it before the Fall, 
and becomes subject more easily to error. If under-
stood in this sense, the assertion that the intellect 
was "darkened" by original sin, is admissible; if, 
however, it is intended to mean that man's intellect 
was intrinsically deteriorated and positively inclined 
to ignorance and error, such an expression is abso-
lutely objectionable. Since the will, too, no longer 
exercises perfect control over the lower powers, in 
the presence of obstacles and difficulties, it tends im-
moderately to earthly and sensible things, overcomes 
temptations and practices virtue only with great ef-
fort. Here, again, we must beware of representing 
the will as intrinsically injured and positively in-
clined to evil by original sin. In their natural per-
fection the will and the intellect remain intact ever 
after the Fall. 

It is the common teaching of theologians, how-
ever, that man in the fallen state does not receive 
as many external aids from God as he would have 
enjoyed had he been left in a state of pure nature; 
that is, had he not been elevated to the supernatural 
state from which he fell. This absence of external 
aids explains why the fallen man of pre-Christian 



ORIGINAL SIN 77 

history found it so difficult to overcome temptations, 
practice virtue, and arrive at a knowledge of the 
necessary religious truths. 

The Lot Of The Unbcuptized 

Children, the insane, and idiots who die with 
original sin—that is, without baptism—will not 
enjoy the Beatific Vision. Sacred Scripture is ab-
solutely clear on this point : "Unless a man be born 
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5) : "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 
16:16). The opening of heaven is one of the graces 
merited for us by Christ; in the present economy 
baptism is the first indispensable means of partici-
pating in Christ's merits. 

But will not these persons grieve over the loss 
of the Beatific Vision on the day of the final judg-
ment? According to St. Thomas these persons will 
very likely not be present at the last judgment at 
all. If they will be present, they will not understand 
the nature of the events. No one can rightly grasp 
and assent to such supernatural truths as the Beati-
fic Vision unless his intellect be endowed with the 
virtue of faith. Since faith is infused together with 
sanctifying grace in baptism, unbaptized persons 
lack this supernatural faculty of knowing. And even 
if they did understand in some measure the nature of 
the Beatific Vision, they would not grieve since they 
would see that there is no relation or proportion 
between their soul and a supernatural reward. 

It is the accepted teaching today that children 
who die with original sin will enjoy the reward of 
a natural happiness in limbo. For while by original 
sin they are turned away from God as their super-



78 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

natural end, they are not turned away from Him as 
their natural end. Furthermore, since they never 
adhered to creatures or committed actual sin, they 
will undergo no pain of sense in limbo. They can 
be said to be "punished" or "damned" only in the 
sense that they did not attain the Beatific Vision. 

Adam And His Descendants 

Scripture affords us no indication as to the 
length of the period of probation of our first parents. 
Although both Adam and Eve fell at almost the 
same time and before they had generated children, 
the human mind, nevertheless, frequently exercises 
itself with such speculative problems as the follow-
ing. What would have been the condition of human-
ity if Eve alone had sinned? or if our first parents 
had generated children before the Fall? or if only 
one of Adam's descendants had fallen? etc. Although 
these questions are highly speculative and proble-
matical, theologians are fairly well agreed on the 
following principles : 

1. If Eve alone had sinned, it is probable that 
Adam's posterity would not have contracted original 
sin. Adam—and not Eve—was constituted the head 
of humanity and he alone could act in the name of 
the whole human race. As a matter of fact, Scrip-
ture tells us that concupiscence became active and 
that God's judgment of condemnation was pro-
nounced only after the sin of Adam. On the other 
hand, if Adam had sinned, even though Eve remained 
innocent, men would contract original sin. 

2. If Adam had begotten children before the 
Fall, they would not have contracted original sin. 
For they would have been born of Adam while he 
was still head of the human race and while he was 



ORIGINAL SIN 79 

still endowed with primitive justice. Those generated 
after the Fall would have contracted original sin in 
the same way as we do, and humanity would have 
been divided into two great sections. And suppose 
the children of these two sections intermarried, what 
would be the state of their offspring? They would 
probably share in the lot of him who plays the prin-
cipal role in generation—namely, the male. 

If sin had occurred only in the third or fourth 
generation, if, for example, the son of Cain were the 
first to commit sin, his descendants would not con-
tract sin because his role would not be that of head 
of the human race. But he himself would have died 
because of his personal sin. 

Discussion Aids 
1. In what does original sin consist? 
2. Is it a mere absence, or is it a privation of 

something? 
3. Prove the doctrine of original sin from the 

Old Testament. 
4. Prove the doctrine of original sin from the 

Gospels and St. Paul's Epistles. 
5. Is original sin a mere imitation on our part 

of the transgression of Adam? 
6. How is Adam the head of the human race? 
7. How does the soul contract original sin ? 
8. What are the penalties of original sin ? 
9. What is the "wound" of original sin? 

10. What is the "wound" in the intellect? 
11. What is the "wound" in the will? 
12. Is fallen man in the same condition as he 

would have been in the state of pure na-
ture? 



BIBLICAL QUESTIONS 

13. What will be the lot of children, the insane, 
and idiots who die without baptism? 

14. If Eve alone had sinned, would Adam's pos-
terity have contracted original son? 

15. If Adam had begotten children before the 
Fall, would they have contracted original 
sin? 

16. If the Son of Cain had been the first to com-
mit sin, would his descendants have con-
tracted original sin? 

Religious Practices 
1. I will frequently thank God for the gift of 

Baptism which blotted out the guilt of orig-
inal sin from my soul. 

2. I will carefully acquaint myself with the 
method of administering baptism in case of 
necessity. 

3. I will patiently accept all trials, sufferings 
and death itself as a penalty of original sin 
and in expiation of my sins. 



Publications of the Confraternity 
Of Christian Doctrine 
ARCHDIOCESE OF SAINT PAUL 

251 Summit Ave. 
Saint Paul, Minnesota 

Teacher's and pupil's booklets for the weekday-
class of religious instruction, for Saturday and Sun-
day religion classes, and for the summer vacation 
school classes. 

Syllabus of Religious Instruction and Education 
—Archdiocese of St. Paul. 

A Manual for Teachers who instruct Catholic pupils at-
tending public schools; explains the catechetical methods used 
in the booklets published by the Confraternity of- Christian 
Doctrine in the Archdiocese of St. Paul. The Syllabus in-
cudes a complete teacher's manual for the KINDERGARTEN, 
PRIMARY, and intermediate grades, and a brief outline of 
the courses for the junior and senior high school students. p n c e $1.00 each 

Intermediate Grades (Grades 4, 5, and 6) 
1. The Apostles Creed and the Life of Christ 

(87 pages) 
P r i c e $0.25 each 
Lots of 25-99 : m û each 
Lots of 100 or more 20 each 

The Teacher's Copy, including answers to tests 
and problems $0.30 each 

2. The Sacraments and-the Mass (72 pages) 
Price :..Same as above 

The Teacher's Copy .. Same as above 
3. The Commandments of God and the Precepts of 

the Church (92 pages) 
Price Same as above 

The Teacher's Copy Same as above 



82 BIBLICAL QUESTIONS1 

Junior High School (Grades 7, 8, and 9) 
1. The Saints Through the Ages (141 pages) 

A course on the virtues through the examples of the 
Saints, with the Creed as a foundation. It aims to develop 
habits of self-mastery so necessary in the period of puberty 
and adolescence. 

Price $0.50 each 
Lots of 25-99 45 each 
Lots of 100 or more 40 each 

The Teacher's Copy, including answers to tests 
and problems $0.60 each 

2. In Christ Through the Parish (137 pages) 
The Mass, Sacraments, and devotions constitute the basis 

of this course which aims to develop in the child a love for 
his parish'church and for parish life. The booklet strives 
to acquaint the child with everything that in any way touches 
upon his life in the parish (the church building, altar, sacred 
vessels, vestments, liturgical functions, devotions, etc.) 

Price Same as above 
The Teacher's Copy Same as above 

3. Vital Problems (122 pages) 
This course tries to prepare the child for many prob-

lems and temptations which he will meet after he finishes the 
grade school (movies, magazines, the gang, drinking, smoking, 
honesty, truthfulness, etc). Thé lessons are correlated with 
the Commandments. 

Price Same as above 
The Teacher's Copy Same as above 

Senior High School (Grades 10, 11, and 12) 
1. The Creed (145 pages) 

Price $0.50 eàch 
Lots of 25-99 45 each 
Lots of 100 or more 40 each 
Teacher's manual (answers only) ....30c each 



CONFRATERNITY PUBLICATIONS 83 

2. The Sacraments, the Mass and the Liturgical 
Year (176 pages) 

Price Same as above 
Teacher's manual (answers only) .. .25c each 

3. The Commandments (138 pages) 
Price Same as above 
Teacher's manual (answers only) ....30c each 

OTHER P U B L I C A T I O N S A V A I L A B L E 
Young People Above High School Age 

1. Modern Questions by Rev. R. G. Bandas (6 
booklets of eight chapters each) Our Sunday 
Visitor Press, Huntington, Indiana 

Price $0.15 each 
Discount when ordered in quantities 

2. Biblical Questions by Rev. R. G. Bandas (8 
booklets—in print) (Old and New Testament) 

For Teachers of Religion 
1. Religion Teaching and Practice (232 pages) by 

Rev. R. G. Bandas. A Teacher's Manual on 
Catechetical Methods. J. F. Wagner, Inc., 53 
Park Place, New York City. 

Price $1.50 each 

NOTE: The Confraternity Manuals were pre-
pared by Committees of Priests, Brothers, Sisters, 
and Laymen of the St. Paul Archdiocese. 

IMPORTANT: Send order to Confraternity 
Center, 251 Summit Ave., St. Paul, Minn. In order-
ing, please specify under which heading are the 
books you wish: intermediate grades, junior, or se-
nior high school. 

Shipping charges added. 





(Continued from inside front cover) 
the materials in the Series are taken from our work, Biblical Questions— 
Old Testament, a book which is now out of print. 

We wish also to express our gratitude to St. Anthony's Guild of 
Paterson, New Jersey, for permission to use its Scriptural publications 
in the preparation of the booklet. The Biblical texts are from the 
Rheims-Douay Version published by the E. M. Lohmann Company of 
St. Paul. In enunciating the Church's traditional and unchanging 
dogmatic teachings bearing upon the questions under discussion, we 
have used as sourcebooks J . M. Herve's Manuale Theologiae Dog-
maticae (Paris, 1924) Vol. II, A. Tanquerey's, Synopsis Theologiae 
Dogmaticae (Tournai, 1921) Vol. II, and our own work. The Master 
Idea of St. Paul's Epistles or the Redemption (Bruges, 1925). 

The Author 

A Manual for High School and College Students and for 
Young People's and Adult Discussion Clubs. 

MODERN QUESTIONS 
by Rev. Rudolph G. Bandas 

SERIES I 
1. Religious Indifference and Unbe-

lief 
2. Materialism 
8. Evolution 
4. Religious Broadmindednees 
5. The Index of Forbidden Books 
6. Secret and Forbidden Societies 
7. The Two "Y's"—Organization 

and Aim 
8. The Two "Y's"—An Appreciation 

SERIES H 
1. The Inquisition 
2. The Orthodox Churches 
3. The Anglican Church 
4. Christian Science 
E. The Witnesses of Jehovah 
6. The Oxford Group Movement 
7. The Salvation of Non-Catholics 
8. Scandals and a Holy Church 

SERIES i n 
1. The Encyclical« 
2. Social Justice 
3. Racism—Expasition 
4. Racism—Criticism 
5. Totalitarianism—-Exposition 
6. Totalitarianism—Criticism 
7. Communism 
8. Communism—Causes and Rem-

edies 

SERIES IV 
1. Euthanasia or Mercy iniHwg 
2. Cremation 
3. Private Property 
4. A Living Was« 
5. Labor Unions 
6. The Morality ot Strikes 
7. The Social Apostolate 
8. Our Civic Duties 

SERIES V 
1. Spiritism 
2. Foretelling the Future 
8. The Liquor Traffic and Drunken-

ness 
4. Salacious Literature 
6. The Movies 
6. Dancing 
7. Gambling 
8. Activities of Catholic Youth Or-

ganizations 

SERIES VI 
1. Vocation to the Priesthood 
2. Vocation to Catholic Action 
8. Vocation to the Sisterhood 
4. Vocation to the Married Life 
6. Marriage, a Contract and a 

Sacrament 
6. Mixed Marriages 
7. The Family 
8. The Education of Children 

15c per copy of each Scries; discount on quantity orders. 
Order from Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana.