Communion of saints

MOTES
effect. It was thought that the core of a physical doctrine of
original sin could be seen here, even though I Cor. 15.22 should
have proved that this idea was impossible, with its 'in Christ' alongside
'in Adam'. Further, it is to be noted that Paul does not regard
the analogy between Adam and Christ as complete. This is clear
without his actually saying it. Adam is man by nature, he is also the
first man, he stands in history. His sin was the 'first' sin. But in a
qualitive sense there are only 'first' sins (see below). Christ was
man and God, he stood both in and beyond history. In so far as
Adam is the man, he can be set over against Christ as the representative
of the old mankind, in contrast to the new, in a limited
analogy.
The concept of the mass presented here is not a sociological concept
of a social structure, but gathers together a number of persons from
one standpoint.
Cf. Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte 11, 504ff. We cannot go into the
matter of Augustine's theological ambiguity.
Since scholasticism there have been various efforts to establish an
ethical idea of mankind. Anselm, with his background of Realism,
sees in mankind a single substantial reality. Through the fall of the
one man the one mankind was also bound to fall (de fide terin 11)
Duns Scotus attributes the lost of the divine image to a divine decree,
Thomas Aquinas emphasises the physical and moral unity of man
in Adam. The physical unity consists of the Adamic nature of man
'omnes homines qui nascuntur ex Adam possunt considervri ut unus homo,
in quantum conveniunt in natural {Summa Theol. 1, 2, qu. 81. 1).
Thomas establishes the moral unity as consisting in the fact that
the members of a community are regarded as unum corpus, while the
community is regarded as unus homo {in civilibus omnes homines sunt
qui unius communitatis reputantur quasi unum corpus et tota communitas
quasi unus homo . . . sic igitur multi homines ex Adam derivati sunt,
tanquam multa membra unius corporis (1, 2, 82.1)). The individual
person of one man stands within the collective person of the human
race. But from this point Thomas turns for clarity to the biological
image of the organism. The member does not have free will, but
must act in accordance with the will of the head. If in the first case
the Augustinian view of nature is not overcome, in the second case
we hear of the moral solidarity of all people, and in the third case
the exclusive responsibility is ascribed to the head of the body. Posttridentine
Roman theology has taken up the problem at this point,
and developed the theory of the decree of God and his covenant
with Adam (following Duns Scotus). (Cf. Busch, Lehre von der
Erbsunde bei Bellarmin und Suarez, 7off, 1 7ifT., 186; and Ambros.
Catharinus, De casu hominis et peccato originali, 184: 'ipso existentes
219