from the Word of God, of which the scholastics, in their discussions,
do not frequently treat.

These were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we
made mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man's natural
strength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate
that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of
God, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and
trust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of
human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the
Decalog.

Neither have we said anything new. The ancient definition understood
aright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: "Original sin
is the absence of original righteousness" [a lack of the first purity
and righteousness in Paradise]. But what is righteousness? Here the
scholastics wrangle about dialectic questions, they do not explain
what original righteousness is. Now, in the Scriptures,
righteousness comprises not only the second table of the Decalog
[regarding good works in serving our fellow-man], but the first also,
which teaches concerning the fear of God, concerning faith,
concerning the love of God. Therefore original righteousness was to
embrace not only an even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect
health and, in all respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the
body, as they contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certain
knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly the
rectitude and power to yield these affections [but the greatest
feature in that noble first creature was a bright light in the heart
to know God and His work, etc.]. And Scripture testifies to this,
when it says, Gen. 1, 27, that man was fashioned in the image and