FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §406

Man. Post. Cap. VII: PLAC — representationis ius; Thomas meant will-principle

PLAC. Therefore, if the learned man is credited, when Adam's will is called the will of all, nothing else is meant than that the volition by which he first sinned—that is, his first disobedience—is everyone's by imputation: which this whole book refutes. But by what right is it everyone's? It is, he says, universal by right of representation. Is it then, as they claim, universal in representing? I do not think he meant that. What then did he mean?—for insofar as it was the will of all, it was a universal will; universal and common seem to signify the same. Yet if he is believed, it was everyone's by imputation. More probably he meant the right of representation by which Adam represented all men. But if he represented all men, he could no less than his will be called a universal man—an elogium with which, I think, no one has yet marked him. Next it may fairly be asked on what foundation such representation and right of representation rest. Perhaps that covenant entered with the whole human race in Adam will be brought forward, which certain learned men invented beyond Scripture and nature to guard immediate imputation: but of that enough has already been said, and there is no need to dispute now. These things I wished to note in passing here: I return to what was treated in the Manuscript, and what the learned man seems to me by this reply to have twisted into an alien sense. For it is clear from Thomas's words, by which that learned man with whom I had to do expounded his mind, that by will not the volition itself but the principle of volition is understood, just as by members not the members' actions but their principles are signified. For Thomas considers all men as parts or members of human nature, and Adam's will as the will of the whole nature, or, as he speaks, of the principle of human nature: which comparison demands that as members do not signify the members' actions but their principles, so will not signify the act of will but its principle.

Latin

PLAC. Ergo, si fides habetur viro docto, cum voluntas Adami dicitur voluntas omnium, nihil aliud significatur, nisi volitionem illam qua primum peccavit, hoc est, primam eius inobedientiam esse omnium per imputationem: id quod toto hoc libro refellimus. Sed quo jure est omnium? Est, inquit, universalis repraesentationis jure. Estne igitur, ut loquuntur, universalis in repraesentando? Non, opinor, hoc voluit. Quid ergo voluit? nam quo fuit voluntas omnium, eo fuit voluntas universalis; universale enim & commune idem videntur significare. Fuit autem, si illi creditur, omnium imputatione. Probabilius est eum intellexisse jus repraesentationis, quo scilicet Adamus repraesentavit omnes homines. At si repraesentavit omnes homines, potuit non minus quam sua voluntas, dici homo universalis: quo tamen elogio nondum, ut opinor, a quoquam est insignitus. Deinde merito quaeri potest, quo fundamento istiusmodi repraesentatio, & repraesentationis jus nitatur. Proferetur fortasse foedus illud initum cum toto genere humano in Adamo, quod ad imputationem immediatam tuendam viri quidam docti praeter Scripturam & naturam excogitarunt: Sed de eo & jam dictum est, & nihil necesse est nunc disputare. Haec enim obiter hoc loco observare volui: redeo ad id de quo agebatur in Manuscripto, & quod mihi videtur vir doctus hac sua responsione detorsisse in alienum sensum. Patet enim ex verbis Thomae, quibus suam mentem is vir doctus, quicum mihi res erat, exposuit, per voluntatem, non ipsam volitionem, sed volitionis principium intelligi, sicut per membra, non actiones membrorum, sed harum principia significantur. Considerantur enim a Thoma omnes homines tanquam partes seu membra naturae humanae, & voluntas Adami ut voluntas totius naturae, vel, ut loquitur, principii naturae humanae: quae comparatio flagitat, ut quemadmodum membra non significant actiones membrorum, sed illarum principia, sic voluntas non significet actionem voluntatis, sed eius principium.

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.