Reply Obj. 1:  The child pre-exists in its father as in its active principle, and in its mother, as in its material and passive principle.  Consequently the comparison fails.

Reply Obj. 2:  Some hold that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would be immune from the sin, but would have been subject to the necessity of dying and to other forms of suffering that are a necessary result of the matter which is provided by the mother, not as punishments, but as actual defects.  This, however, seems unreasonable.  Because, as stated in the First Part (Q. 97, AA. 1, 2, ad 4), immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice, whereby the body was subjected to the soul, so long as the soul remained subject to God.  Now privation of original justice is original sin.  If, therefore, supposing Adam had not sinned, original sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve’s sin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of original justice:  and consequently they would not have been liable to suffer and subject to the necessity of dying.

Reply Obj. 3:  This prevenient purification in the Blessed Virgin was not needed to hinder the transmission of original sin, but because it behooved the Mother of God “to shine with the greatest purity” [Cf.  Anselm, De Concep.  Virg. xviii.].  For nothing is worthy to receive God unless it be pure, according to Ps. 92:5:  “Holiness becometh Thy House, O Lord.” ________________________

QUESTION 82

OF ORIGINAL SIN, AS TO ITS ESSENCE
(Question 82)

We must now consider original sin as to its essence, and under this head there are four points of inquiry: 

(1) Whether original sin is a habit?

(2) Whether there is but one original sin in each man?

(3) Whether original sin is concupiscence?

(4) Whether original sin is equally in all?
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 82, Art. 1]

Whether Original Sin Is a Habit?

Objection 1:  It would seem that original sin is not a habit.  For original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De Concep.  Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation.  But privation is opposed to habit.  Therefore original sin is not a habit.

Obj. 2:  Further, actual sin has the nature of fault more than original sin, in so far as it is more voluntary.  Now the habit of actual sin has not the nature of a fault, else it would follow that a man while asleep, would be guilty of sin.  Therefore no original habit has the nature of a fault.

Obj. 3:  Further, in wickedness act always precedes habit, because evil habits are not infused, but acquired.  Now original sin is not preceded by an act.  Therefore original sin is not a habit.