Via Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §182

Man. Post. Cap. II §XVII: Garissoles — communem & singularem; Bernard; conception

Garissoles (§XVII): For that would nearly match the distinction we already set out into common and singular imputation: taking the prior and immediate as that common imputation we named, and the posterior and mediate as what we called proper or singular. That common or immediate imputation, though later than Adam's first actual transgression, was earlier than each person sprung from Adam's personal existence—and earlier also than the corruption that descends on each by natural generation—insofar as from the beginning all were commonly in Adam. In that sense Bernard said Adam and Eve were our destroyers before they were our parents. But singular, proper, personal, mediate imputation may rightly be called later than the corruption inherent in us, since that sin can be charged to no one personally unless he is Adam's son and so exists as a person; and no one exists as a person and counts as Adam's son until soul and body have coalesced into one person—which union of the essential parts of man is without doubt later than conception, and so on. Therefore at first conception the soul is not yet present; there is not yet a man, not yet a son of Adam; and yet from the very moment of conception viciousness is in the seed, which has that tinder of sin they define as a disordered quality of the flesh drawn from the first parents' sin into their posterity, and so on.

Latin

GAR. Ita enim paria ferme faceret cum ea, quam praemisimus, imputationis distinctione in communem & singularem: ut priorem & immediatam intelligeremus, communem illam quam diximus; posteriorem & mediatam quam propriam sive singularem nominavimus. Nam certe communis illa sive immediata, quemadmodum posterior fuit prima actuali Adae transgressione, ita prior fuit personali cujusque hominis ex Adamo prognati existentia, atque adeo etiam corruptione illa, quae in singulos naturali generatione descendit; quatenus ab initio res fuerunt omnes communiter in Adamo, quo sensu dictum est a Bernardo, Adamum & Evam fuisse prius nostros peremptores quam parentes. At imputatio singularis, propria, personalis & mediata, recte dici possit corruptione nobis inhaerente posterior, quatenus nemini personaliter imputari potest peccatum istud, nisi filius sit Adami, adeoque nisi personaliter existat: neque potest aliquis personaliter existere, & pro filio Adami haberi, nisi postquam anima & corpus in unam personam coaluerunt: quae partium hominis essentialium coalitio atque conjunctio, sine dubio conceptione posterior est &c. Ergo in conceptione prima nondum adest anima, nondum homo est, nondum filius Adami: & tamen ab ipso conceptionis momento inest vitiositas in semine, quippe quod habet fomitem illum peccati, quem definiunt, inordinatam carnis qualitatem ex peccato primorum parentium traductam in posteros, &c.

About this text

New English, free to read. Open any section below.

English follows the locked 1661 Saumur Latin of Capita I–XIV partial through Man. Post. No modern English was copied. Cap. IX deepen+ remain.

Catalogue & scope

IA deimputationepri00lapl. Densify: Capita I–XII + Caput XIV + Man. Post. Cap. II–VI through Cap. X Rom. 5:14 tip. Not whole Disputatio; Cap. X Rom. 5:14+ / ~494 pp Disputatio remain.

Witnesses

This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.