Over the course of Genesis 3, we've witnessed the slow-motion downfall of humankind from being God's image to God's exile. It's been a tragic and degrading path that the first sin put the man and the woman on. And now that the garden has vomited us forth, now that cherubim and burning blade firmly bar our way back in, we have little choice but to begin looking at the world from a new perspective – a perspective from outside the garden of God. With today's passage, we begin to consider, in Bede's words, “the deeds of this world and of mortal life.”1
First, though, “the LORD God made for the human and his wife garments” (Genesis 3:21). Earlier, the man and woman had sewn together fig leaves into skimpy girdles to conceal their nakedness, but in neither durability nor size were they up to the task. God generously provides replacement clothing, something larger, “something more durable, more suited to the hard lives they will face outside the garden.”2 The kind of garment pictured here is a long tunic that reaches down at least to the knees, maybe even the ankles.3 Unlike flimsy fig leaves, they're stiffer stuff, able to not only visually obstruct their bodies but also protect them from the elements, from “blazing sun, chilling wind, or pouring rain.”4 Now, God doesn't have to do this. He could just let them spend their whole lives doing little more than stitching leaf to leaf! But generously, before he sends them out to face the consequences of sin, he provides something to ease the harshness of the world. And to that end, having stopped his work of 'making' on the seventh day, God goes back to 'making,' all for the sake of mercy.5
Not only are they a protection, though, they're a privilege. The word for 'garments' here is used by Moses for the 'tunics' that Aaron and his sons will wear as their priestly vestments (Exodus 29:5-9; Leviticus 8:7).6 These vestments given to Adam and Eve are more than just the customary clothes of a caveman; they show that the man and woman go forth invested as priests who maintain a relationship with God. The LORD God stooped down and peeled the fig leaves away, destroying the covering they've tried to make for themselves; he exposed their shamefully bare nature. But then the hand of the LORD gently “clothed them” in what they had no way to get themselves (Genesis 3:21). By God's “caring authority,” he shows his commitment to not give up on us, to cover us when we confess we're naked and poor, to welcome us, to dignify us.7 We're rightly moved when the father runs to the prodigal son and throws a robe over him as he comes home; but this is the Father giving the fine robe as the prodigal son leaves in the first place! These vestments are astonishing symbols of the authority and dominion that the man and woman will still bear in the world beyond the garden as God's images and as God's beloved.8
But this intimacy and power of grace, while free to the man and woman, still has its cost. These are, we're told, “garments of skins” (Genesis 3:21). And to make body-length tunics for two, no animal has that much skin to spare and then just go about its day. God's provision comes at the cost of some animal's life.9 Something had to die in order for the man and woman's shame and vulnerability to be covered, in order for them to be reinvested with status and authority, in order for them to be equipped to still minister to God outside the garden.
Sin is a costly thing that can't merely be papered over or dismissed. To get by in the world will be painful and messy and at least a little bit brutal. For even here, in this dawning moment, some beast has died for our sake. And whatever it was, it won't be the last. The priest who slew a guilt-offering was entitled to its skin (Leviticus 7:8). And so, as they say goodbye to the garden of God, man and woman wear the skins of a dead beast over their own naked skin, a constant reminder of “the profound consequences of their choice for disobedience.”10
Now “the human called his wife's name 'Eve,' because she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). Adam and Eve – their names mean 'Human' and 'Make-Alive.'11 And to call her 'Mother of All Living' is a profound gesture Genesis makes; among Israel's pagan neighbors, that kind of title was reserved for mother goddesses.12 He calls her that in advance. But now, in the world outside God's garden, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and she bore” (Genesis 4:1). They were told to “be fruitful and multiply,” and the original blessing remains intact despite the curse (Genesis 1:28). In fact, this conception and labor are carried out “with the LORD” (Genesis 4:1). Despite how challenging and uncomfortable Eve finds the process, “with God all things are possible” after all (Matthew 19:26).13 God “makes her the joyous mother of children” (Psalm 113:9).
And so “she bore Cain, and she said: 'I have gotten a man!'” (Genesis 4:1). It's a curious thing for her to say. The verb she uses, qānîtî, is used elsewhere for acquiring wisdom (Proverbs 1:5), owning livestock (Isaiah 1:3), buying a field (Jeremiah 32:44), buying a lamb (2 Samuel 12:3), buying clothing (Jeremiah 13:2), even buying a slave (Exodus 21:2). It's a commercial word, a property word, an ownership word. Eve's claiming what she's conceived and birthed as her purchase, her property, her possession. In more special circumstances, though, this is also the word used for God as the Producer of heaven and earth (Genesis 14:19), as the one who created Israel (Deuteronomy 32:6), as the one who forms our innermost parts before we're born (Psalm 139:13). Eve's laying credit to forming, fashioning, forging, manufacturing a man.14
In Genesis 2, the woman was depicted as derived from the man (Genesis 2:23); now she, as woman, asserts her womanly power as the source of man from henceforth.15 She concedes, at the end, a role for God – “I have gotten a man with the LORD” (Genesis 4:1) – but casts herself as his colleague, as though Cain were the fruit of a group project they'd worked on.16 But it's almost like she's his competitor as well: “Now it's not just you who manufacture men, LORD; what you do, I do too!” She “puts herself on par with the Lord as creator,” and so Cain's very name is testimony to the same grasping after godhood that led her to snatch the forbidden fruit.17 It isn't a sign of a healthy attitude: in her son whom she manufactured and owns, she has a man, she thinks, like a new husband, who won't disappoint in the way Adam does; he'll be “the apple of his mother's eye.”18
“And she added to bear his brother Abel” (Genesis 4:2). He comes across as an afterthought. His name gets no comment, because its meaning is obvious to anybody who speaks Hebrew. It's a pretty common word in the Old Testament, often translated 'vanity,' but really meaning 'breath' or 'mist' or 'vapor.' It refers to something so fragile it can easily be blown away, something on the verge of dissipating the moment you see it,19 “something insubstantial and evanescent.”20 It's a pretty odd name for a baby boy; perhaps he was a small and weak child, not expected to last long, the kind for whom Adam might've stayed up late into the night praying for a miracle.21 And, of course, there's no doubt some foreshadowing here: Abel's really won't be a long life on earth.22 “Leave me alone,” Job tells his friends, “for my days are a vapor” (Job 7:16). Abel could've said that just as well.
The fact that Genesis only mentions once that Adam knew his wife or that she conceived, and then narrates two births, has led many to suggest that Cain and Abel might be implied to be twins.23 If so, they make quite the contrast: one born so robust he's portrayed as a full-grown man straight from the womb, and his brother born so frail he was practically named 'Temporary,' 'Don't-Count-on-It,' 'Here-Today-Gone-Tomorrow.' And together they paint a portrait of the world as we find it outside God's garden. Cain shows us the world through the lens of pride and possession. He tells us there's no limit to human potential, nothing to thwart our glory. In Cain's world, the way to get by is to get ahead, to work hard, to put yourself first and achieve all you can imagine. His whole life will be stamped by the dynamic of owning and being owned. His is the world viewed by economists, industrialists, technologists; he's the manufactured man, the quantifiable man. To live in Cain-world is to live for grabbing and getting, a world of invention and production, of seeking salvation on an assembly line. It's a world bought and sold a trillion times a minute, a world we demand to reshape and repair and remortgage, a factory model of markets and might, suffused with objects and efforts, a world we imagine we can master through ingenuity and elbow grease.
But then Abel is born: “Vapor of vapors! Everything is vapor! What profit does an adam have by all the toil which he toils under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:2-3). So says Ecclesiastes, which might as well be called the Book of Abel. Everything Cain represents is unmasked therein as an “ultimate emptiness and fruitlessness.”24 “All toil and all skill in work,” everything Cain was all about, “come from a man's envy of his neighbor: this also is vapor and grasping after wind” (Ecclesiastes 4:4). “So I hated life, because what was done under the sun was grievous to me, for everything is vapor and grasping after wind” (Ecclesiastes 2:17). “Adam is like a vapor; his days are like a passing shadow” (Psalm 144:4). “Surely every adam stands as entirely vapor” (Psalm 39:5). Human life turns out to be 100% Abel. All we are is dust in the wind. And so are all these nice things that share this Abel-world with us. Things fall apart. If Cain shows us the world through a lens of pride and possession, Abel shows it through a lens of peril and pointlessness. Nothing in life is certain but death and taxes. “Time and chance happen to [us] all” (Ecclesiastes 9:11). Nothing we can do amounts to more than children building sandcastles on a beach holiday, or a fool trying to shoot down the moon with bow and arrow.25
As one author puts it, “where the name 'Cain' speaks of grasping after divinity, then, the name 'Abel' signifies the transient nature of human existence.”26 The hopes of Cain are thwarted by Abel every time, and Cain will make sure of it. Here we have the world outside the garden: pride raising its own peril, possessiveness proving pointlessness, and the vicious cycle locks us into a desperate combat to secure the impossible. The more we see that nothing lasts, the more anxiously we crave to cobble together something certain; and the more frantically we try, the more we damage the world and hasten its dissipation. Now that's a Cain-and-Abel world we're in.
It wasn't meant to be that way, of course. In the beginning, we were made originally righteous, innocent, by “a definite gift of grace divinely bestowed upon all human nature in the first parent.”27 If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, then at the moment of our conception God would've given each of us that same added gift of a total rightness inside and out, key to operating human nature the right way.28 In Genesis 3, we watched Adam and Eve lose that innocence, but we might hope that when their children are born, they'll enter even the world outside the garden as innocents who have the same inner health Adam and Eve had.
But it turns out that the answer to that is no. As St. Augustine put it, “the transgression of those two,” of Adam and Eve, “ought to be understood as so great a sin that it could change for the worse the nature of all who are born of man and woman and could bind them with a common guilt.”29 Original righteousness was ripped off human nature violently, leaving human nature itself naked and wounded in all who are born to it, starting here in Genesis 4. In Cain and Abel alike, Adam and Eve “begat sons who still carry with them the original sin of their unfaithful progenitor.”30 Or, to use the Bible's own words, Cain and Abel could both look back and sing in unison the psalm: “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5).
The Apostle Paul explains that “by the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners” (Romans 5:19). Each one of us can say, “In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of paradise..., in Adam I am guilty of sin.”31 It's right there in the Bible: “the trespass of one led to condemnation for all humans” (Romans 5:18). “As an inheritance, Adam left his children... not freedom but bondage..., not salvation but destruction.”32 Paul says it without mincing words: as Adam's descendants, we are all born “children, by nature, of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).
So the early Christians recognized that “every soul... born in Adam... is unclean,” and “sinful, too, because it is unclean.”33 That includes Cain. It also includes Abel.34 And me, and you, and your great-grandkids. Not only after they grow up, but from the very beginning. “All the children of Adam were in him infected by the contagion of sin,”35 hence why the birth of every child in Israel called for a sin-offering (Leviticus 12:6).36 “No one is without sin, not even an infant one day old, although he never committed a sin” in his own person,37 they said, for a newborn baby “has not sinned at all, except that, born carnally according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the first death from the first nativity.”38 “All souls, even those of infants..., contract original sin.”39 That's because “the human nature in which each of us is born of Adam... is not in good health,” because it has a “defect which darkens and weakens” it.40 This “defect stemming from the origin remains in the offspring to make them guilty.”41 So “no one is born of Adam who is not bound by the chain of sin and condemnation;”42 “absolutely everyone who has been born is held guilty.”43
Those aren't my words; they're the words of Christians from the first four centuries of the faith, before Patrick began to evangelize Ireland. As sons of Adam, as daughters of Eve, “we are invariably fellow-travelers away from God” even as he forms us in our mother's womb.44 We have an obligation to be in a right relationship with God, to be at peace with God, but we are born outside that relationship, born inheriting a fallen state, born as heirs of a war declared on God.45 Even though we didn't choose it, we're born guilty of being on the wrong side of it. From our first infant cry, Adam's generating influence is reaching down through the ages, connecting us to his sinful will.46 Since Adam represented us all before God, human nature itself was declared guilty in him, and so what we inherit is guilty, even before we've had a chance to will anything sinful as newborn individuals.47
It's not just a silly outdated idea, either. John Wesley reminded us that “all men are conceived in sin and shapen in wickedness,”48 so that each person born in descent from Adam and Eve is “justly punishable for it.”49 Our own denomination's articles of faith confess this, too. Each one of us suffers from a “disordered disposition,” a “corrupt habit of sorts” through which “the various powers of the soul strain towards conflicting objectives.”50 That inner disorder we're born with and guilty of explains why “human nature is now defective so that we are all prone to [actual] sin.”51 Original sin doesn't coerce us into putting sin into practice – we have free will – but, living with the effects of original sin, universally we actually sin once we get the chance.52
That might sound like an incredibly gloomy, dreary, and offensive message – that we should look into an infant face and see not only the precious image of God but also the presence of disorder, guilt, sin, judgment. But the reason why the Church came to so strongly insist on this original sin idea is because, if original sin isn't true, then “not all would be in need of redemption through Christ.”53 The Church came to this deep understanding of original sin by reasoning backwards from the beautiful reality of our redemption in Jesus!
It all adds up from one practice and two convictions. First, the practice: the early church baptized babies. We can't find a time when we see Christians unwilling to baptize babies. Our earliest witnesses say the Church got it as “a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children,”54 and the New Testament itself shows us cases of whole households being baptized together, babies and all (Acts 16:33). If “no one is prevented from baptism and grace,” one early bishop said, “how much more should an infant not be prohibited?”55 Second, the first conviction: there are not two different kinds of baptism. They got that straight from the Apostle Paul, who says outright in the Bible: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Third, the other conviction: baptism is an answer to sin and guilt. They got that from the Apostle Peter, who “baptized... for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38), and from Ananias who baptized Paul to “wash away [his] sins” (Acts 22:16).
So, they reasoned, babies are baptized, and baptism is to wash away the guilt of sin. Could they be baptized for some other reason? No, because then there'd be two different kinds of baptism, but we know there's only one. So if babies are baptized, then “the Church certainly baptizes” them “for a true forgiveness of sins.”56 For “if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness..., then the grace of baptism would appear superfluous.”57 But what in infants could need forgiving, if they haven't committed any sins of their own? The early church answered: “In the case of little children, original sin is removed by baptism.”58
Whether we accept all their premises or not, that's how the early church reasoned their way there. “The first birth holds human beings under the condemnation from which only the second birth sets them free.”59 That's why Jesus says, “You must be born again!” (John 3:7). “Who will be so bold,” they ask, “to say that Christ is not the Savior and Redeemer of infants? But from what does he save them if they don't have the disease of original sin?”60 So, they concluded, on account of original sin, “it is necessary even for infants to be reborn in Christ,”61 to be “released from the bonds of sin through the grace of Christ the Mediator.”62
This dark doctrine of original sin is actually meant to cast into relief the bigger truth that “every human being, even the littlest, is called to the knowledge and love of Christ.”63 And if that's true of even a baby at her first breath, if it was true of infant Abel and child Cain, then how can any of us ever doubt that we're called to Christ, that salvation is meant for the likes of us? For the Lord's faithful grace “has the same fullness of power... in the action, confession, and forgiveness of sins in every sex, age, and condition of the human race.”64
Just as the sin of Adam and Eve was covered by garments God made, so Cain and Abel, though born naked and poor, need not stay that way. Even out of God's garden, Adam and Eve could knit and sew clothes of cotton and wool and animal skins for their children, and undoubtedly they did. But spiritually, Cain and Abel don't have to stay naked and poor either. They, like every child, like every adult, can be clothed by God. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ” – even if in the very hour you opened your eyes outside the garden – “have put on Christ” as a vestment infinitely nobler than what Adam and Eve wore (Galatians 3:27). And so we can thank God that, though we're out in this world of pride and peril, of possessiveness and pointlessness, although we're born in sin and all we grasp at is only chasing the wind, Christ welcomes us one and all with this same promise, even in our Cain-and-Abel world: “Let the little children come unto me” (Matthew 19:14). Amen.
1 Bede, On Genesis 4:1, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:140.
2 C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (P&R Publishing, 2005), 175.
3 Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2001), 95.
4 Mitchell L. Chase, Short of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Exploration of the Fall (Crossway, 2023), 166; cf. Zvi Grumet, Genesis: From Creation to Covenant, Maggid Studies in Tanakh (Maggid Books, 2017), 55.
5 Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11, Christian Standard Commentary (Holman Reference, 2023), 208.
6 Seth D. Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to Torah and Tanakh (Wipf & Stock, 2011), 112; G. Geoffrey Harper, “I Will Walk Among You”: The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1-3 in the Book of Leviticus (Eisenbrauns, 2018), 157-158; Gregg Davidson and J. Kenneth Turner, The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One: A Multi-Layered Approach (Kregel Academic, 2021), 109.
7 Friedhelm Hartenstein, “Clothing and Nudity in the Paradise Story (Gen. 2-3),” in Christoph Berner, Manuel Schäfer, Martin Scott, Sarah Schulz, and Martina Weingärtner, eds., Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible (T&T Clark, 2019), 373.
8 David W. Cotter, Genesis, Berit Olam (Liturgical Press, 2003), 35-36. Cf. Wisdom of Solomon 10:1-2.
9 Matthew S. Harmon, Rebels and Exiles: A Biblical Theology of Sin and Restoration (Crossway, 2020), 16-17; Brial Neil Peterson, Genesis: A Pentecostal Commentary (Brill, 2022), 55; Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible's Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Zondervan Academic, 2022), 176; Mitchell L. Chase, Short of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Exploration of the Fall (Crossway, 2023), 167.
10 Raymond R. Hausoul, God's Future For Animals: From Creation to New Creation (Wipf & Stock, 2021), 71. Cf. Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 3:21, in Luther's Works 1:221 (“a sign that they are mortal and that they are living in certain death”).
11 Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11 (Eisenbrauns, 2009), 23.
12 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 29.
13 John Goldingay, Genesis, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2020), 94; Brian Neil Peterson, Genesis: A Pentecostal Commentary (Brill, 2022), 57.
14 C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (P&R Publishing, 2005), 196-197; John Day, From Creation to Abraham: Further Studies on Genesis 1-11 (T&T Clark, 2021), 78-80.
15 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 32; Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2001), 96; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11 (Holman Reference, 2023), 219.
16 Zvi Grumet, Genesis: From Creation to Covenant, Maggid Studies in Tanakh (Maggid Books, 2017), 57.
17 John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry (Brill, 2011), 15; Iain Provan, Discovering Genesis: Content, Interpretation, Reception (Eerdmans, 2016), 99.
18 Zvi Grumet, Genesis: From Creation to Covenant, Maggid Studies in Tanakh (Maggid Books, 2017), 57.
19 James McKeown, Genesis, Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2008), 40; Joseph E. Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Beacon Hill Press, 2012), 152; James Chukwuma Okoye, Genesis 1-11: A Narrative-Theological Commentary (Wipf & Stock, 2018), 78.
20 John Goldingay, Genesis, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2020), 95.
21 Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11 (Eisenbrauns, 2009), 27-28.
22 Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2001), 97.
23 John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry (Brill, 2011), 20-21; John Goldingay, Genesis, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2020), 95.
24 John Goldingay, Genesis, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2020), 95.
25 Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes 1:2, in Stuart G. Hall, ed., Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes: An English Version with Supporting Studies (Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 35.
26 Iain W. Provan, Seriously Dangerous Religion: What the Old Testament Really Says and Why It Matters (Baylor University Press, 2014), 193.
27 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q.81, a.2, in Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae 26:15.
28 Paul A. Macdonald Jr., God, Evil, and Redeeming Good: A Thomistic Theodicy (Routledge, 2023), 103-104.
29 Augustine of Hippo, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian 6.21.A7, in Works of Saint Augustine I/25:656.
30 Paulus Orosius, Defense Against the Pelagians 26, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 99:153.
31 Ambrose of Milan, On the Death of His Brother Satyrus 2.6, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 22:200.
32 Melito of Sardis, On the Passover 49, in Popular Patristics Series 55:64-65.
33 Tertullian of Carthage, On the Soul 40.1, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 10:271.
34 Augustine of Hippo, Nature and Grace 36 §42, in Works of Saint Augustine I/23:246.
35 Augustine of Hippo, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian 6.22.A12, in Works of Saint Augustine I/25:660.
36 Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 5.9.11, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 103:366-367.
37 Ambrose of Milan, Cain and Abel 1.3 §10, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 42:366.
38 Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64.5, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 51:219.
39 Augustine of Hippo, Letter 190.5, in Works of Saint Augustine II/3:269.
40 Augustine of Hippo, Nature and Grace 3, in Works of Saint Augustine I/23:226.
41 Augustine of Hippo, The Grace of Christ and Original Sin 2.39 §44, in Works of Saint Augustine I/23:457.
42 Augustine of Hippo, Letter 190.3, in Works of Saint Augustine II/3:265.
43 Pope Zosimus of Rome, Tractoria, quoted in Augustine of Hippo, Letter 190.23, in Works of Saint Augustine II/3:274.
44 R. R. Reno, Genesis, Brazos Theological Commentary (Brazos Press, 2010), 97.
45 Paul A. Macdonald Jr., God, Evil, and Redeeming Good: A Thomistic Theodicy (Routledge, 2023), 126.
46 Paul A. Macdonald Jr., God, Evil, and Redeeming Good: A Thomistic Theodicy (Routledge, 2023), 122.
47 Paul A. Macdonald Jr., God, Evil, and Redeeming Good: A Thomistic Theodicy (Routledge, 2023), 123.
48 John Wesley, Sermon 44.3.1, in The Works of John Wesley 2:183.
49 John Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin 2.1.5, in The Works of John Wesley 12:217.
50 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q.82, aa.1-2, in Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae 26:31-37.
51 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q.80, a.4, in Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae 25:229.
52 Paul A. Macdonald Jr., God, Evil, and Redeeming Good: A Thomistic Theodicy (Routledge, 2023), 104.
53 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q.81, a.3, in Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae 26:17.
54 Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 5.9.11, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 103:367.
55 Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64.5, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 51:219.
56 Augustine of Hippo, Letter 190.15, in Works of Saint Augustine II/3:269; cf. Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Luke 14.5, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 94:58 (“little children are baptized for the remission of sins”).
57 Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Leviticus 8.3.5, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 83:158.
58 Augustine of Hippo, Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins 1.9, in Works of Saint Augustine I/23:38.
59 Augustine of Hippo, The Grace of Christ and Original Sin 2.39 §45, in Works of Saint Augustine I/23:458.
60 Augustine of Hippo, Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins 1.23 §33, in Works of Saint Augustine I/23:53.
61 Augustine of Hippo, Letter 202A.17, in Works of Saint Augustine II/3:369.
62 Augustine of Hippo, City of God 13.3, in Works of Saint Augustine I/7:71.
63 Daniel W. Houck, Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution (Cambridge University Press, 2020), 257.
64 Pope Zosimus of Rome, Tractoria, quoted in Augustine of Hippo, Letter 190.23, in Works of Saint Augustine II/3:273.
No comments:
Post a Comment