2i6 ORIGINAL SIN 



Augustine's doctrine of ''inherited sinfulness" does not 

 require some such view as that of traducianism; and 

 adds, "If it does, both fall together. For philosophy 

 will not allow such notions as those which traducian- 

 ism, when least materialistic, necessarily involves." * 

 Dr. Tennant's language amounts to an assertion that 

 traducianism is untenable, and to a suggestion of doubt 

 whether the creationist view will logically permit us to 

 accept St. Augustine's doctrine of inherited sinfulness. 

 I am not defending Augustinianism, but Dr. Tennant's 

 argument seems to suggest doubts as to the logical 

 validity for creationists of any form of the doctrine of 

 original sin, whether it includes St. Augustine's theory 

 of inherited guilt or not. 



Now modern investigation has certainly increased 

 the difficulty of accepting the traducianist view; al- 

 though the preference for creationism which is widely 

 felt among theologians does not owe its origin to this 

 cause, but is of many centuries' standing. Without 

 being a catholic doctrine, creationism is the usual 

 concomitant of belief in the doctrine of original sin.^ 



1 Op. cit., p. 31. 



- Tertullian was the chief patristic defender of traducianism, 

 but took a semi-materialistic view of the nature of the soul. St. 

 Augustine apparently leaned to the same view, but did not definitely 

 teach it, and did not share in Tertullian's materialism. His failure 

 to teach it in connection with his defence of original sin is highly 

 significant. Traducianism was widely accepted by Western fathers 

 and by St. Gregory Nyss. in the East. The Easterns, however, 

 generally held the creationist view. Traducianism practically dis- 

 appeared from catholic theology in subsequent ages; partly because 

 of its materialistic implications, and partly by reason of apparent 



