FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §399

Man. Post. Cap. VII: PLAC — similitude limps; Adam not absolute principle of nature

In the preceding words he was composing nature with person, all men with the body's members. Whence arose this likeness: as person stands to the body's members, so nature stands to all men. Badly enough, as I hinted: for it is not that as person is the principle-which of the action and the member the principle-by-which, so nature is the principle-which and men the principles-by-which it sins. Rather the contrary, as I already said. Now how does he fit that comparison to the point? An act of sin exercised through some member, he says, has the nature of sin not from that member's will but from the whole person's. I expected him to conclude: therefore an act of sin exercised through some man has the nature of sin not from that man's will but from human nature's will. But he, changing terms, put in place of an act exercised through men or a man the whole inordination of nature, and in place of human nature's will put Adam's will who was the principle of human nature. Yet first, accurately speaking, it is false that Adam was the principle of human nature: rather, on the contrary, human nature was Adam's principle. For nature is somehow a part of the supposit; and a part is somehow a principle of what it composes. And as the Logicians say, human nature is prior to Adam in the consequence of existing. Therefore Adam is principle or cause not of human nature absolutely, but of the human nature that was in his posterity—as any father is principle of his posterity's nature, not of his own. Next, Adam's will was his person's will as mine is mine; nor do I understand why it should be called nature's will. For if Adam was principle of human nature, it does not follow that his will was nature's will—only that Adam was principle of human nature's will, or that human nature has no will, or at most that Adam's will was the principle of nature's will.

Latin

In praecedentibus verbis componebat naturam cum persona, omnes homines cum membris corporis. Unde oriebatur haec similitudo, ut se habet persona ad membra corporis, sic se habet natura ad omnes homines. Satis, ut innui, male: Non enim ut persona est principium quod actionis, membrum quo; sic natura est principium quod, homines principia quibus peccat. Sed contra, ut iam dixi. Iam autem quomodo istam comparationem ad institutum accommodat? Actus, inquit, peccati exercitus per aliquod membrum non habet rationem peccati ex voluntate illius membri, sed totius personae. Expectabam ut concluderet, ergo actus peccati exercitus per aliquem hominem non habet rationem peccati ex voluntate illius hominis, sed ex voluntate naturae humanae. Verum ille mutatis terminis, loco actus exerciti per homines aut hominem, posuit totam inordinationem naturae, & pro voluntate naturae humanae posuit voluntatem Adae qui fuit principium naturae humanae. Atqui primum accurate loquendo falsum est, Adam fuisse principium naturae humanae: Imo contra potius, natura humana fuit principium Adami. Est enim natura quodammodo pars suppositi: pars autem principium aliquomodo eius quod componit. Et, ut Logici loquuntur, natura humana prior est Adamo existendi consequentia. Est igitur Adamus principium seu causa, non absolute naturae humanae, sed naturae humanae quae in eius posteris fuit: quomodo pater quilibet principium est naturae posterorum, non suae. Deinde voluntas Adae tam eius personae voluntas fuit, quam mea meae; nec intelligo cur naturae voluntas dici debeat. Nam si Adamus principium fuit naturae humanae, inde non sequitur eius voluntatem fuisse voluntatem naturae, sequitur tantum Adamum fuisse principium voluntatis naturae humanae, aut certe naturam humanam non habere voluntatem, aut ad summum voluntatem Adami fuisse principium voluntatis naturae.

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.