FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §396

Man. Post. Cap. VII: 2nd similitude opens — Thomas body; traduction; infants' infection

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

You draw a second likeness from a natural whole—namely the human body—and express it in Thomas Aquinas's words: not, I think, to prop your sentence by his authority or to move me (you know how null that is among our Churches), but because his words seemed handy and clear to you. I understand somehow in what mind Thomas spoke them, and because I understand that they contain a doctrine diverse from our Churches' mind, I do not receive them; and I do not see with what counsel you recited them here, unless you happen to think exactly with Thomas on original sin—which I dare not suspect of you. Thomas holds that sin is traduced into us from Adam through vitiated fleshly origin, or (as in the Summa) that the first man's first sin passes originally into posterity; and he shows how it reaches the rational soul through seed. But granting that traduction of sin, the doubt remains that defects drawn from a vitiated origin do not have the nature of fault; for they do not merit penalty but rather mercy, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or otherwise bereft. And that is because it belongs to fault's nature to be voluntary and in the power of the man to whom fault is imputed. The question, then, was how those defects—or, as the Summa says, the infection—have the nature of sin when they are involuntary in infants. His reply, since you praise it, I will weigh part by part.

Latin

Alteram similitudinem ducis a toto naturali, corpore scilicet humano, eamque Thomae Aquinatis verbis exprimis: non, opinor, ut eius authoritate sententiam tuam fulcias, aut me commoveas; scis enim quam apud Ecclesias nostras sit nulla, sed quia eius verba tibi visa sunt commoda & dilucida. Ego autem qua mente dicta sint a Thoma utcunque intelligo, & quia intelligo, doctrinam continere a mente Ecclesiarum nostrarum diversam, non recipio: quo vero consilio a te sint recitata hoc loco non assequor, nisi forte idem prorsus sentias de peccato originali cum Thoma: quod de te suspicari non audeo. Ponit Thomas peccatum per carnis originem vitiatam ab Adamo in nos traduci, sive (ut habet in Summa) primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transire in posteros; ac ostendit quomodo per semen ad animam rationalem perveniat. Sed concessa illa peccati traductione remanet dubitatio, quod defectus, qui ex vitiata origine trahuntur, non habeant rationem culpae; non enim merentur poenam, sed magis misericordiam, sicut Philosophus dicit de eo qui nascitur caecus, vel quocunque alio modo aliter orbatus. Et hoc ideo, quia de ratione culpae est quod sit voluntaria, & in potestate hominis cui culpa imputatur. Quaestio igitur erat, quomodo defectus illi, vel, ut loquitur in Summa, infectio, habeant rationem peccati, cum sint involuntarii in infantibus. Eius responsionem, quia a te laudatur, expendam per partes.

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. Caput IX (eph-ho / eph-ho pantes) before eph-ho / eph-ho pantes, reconstructed from IA PDF page images with Vision OCR and pdftotext as check. 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.