On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §288

Man. Post. Cap. VI: Chamier — actiones sunt suppositorum

Certainly Chamier denied that that action of Adam is our action, book 1 On the corruption of man, chapter 8, § 9. I say, he says, that no sin one in number can be common to all men. For sin is either a quality or an action. A quality, as original sin. An action, as any actual sin whatever. But no quality, one and the same in number, can be communicated to several subjects: as the whiteness which is in snow cannot be the same in number in a swan, or in wool. But actions are of individuals (supposits). Therefore the same homicide perpetrated by Cain cannot be by Lamech. Therefore I deny that that sin of Adam is Original sin. For it cannot be common to all, whether by number, because it is an action: or by species, because it is an individual act. And again in the same chapter § 11. Every sin is either a quality or an action, as we have said, of him of whom it is called a sin. But this act of Adam is neither a quality of ours: for it does not even exist: and therefore it cannot be a quality: then action and quality differ widely: nor is it even our act: because the same act in number is not of various subjects. Therefore that act of Adam is not our sin: much less is it our original. This reason of his is the same as this of mine: if Adam's action is ours, his subject is ours: for actions are of subjects.

Latin

Certe Chamierus negavit actionem illam Adami esse nostram actionem, lib. 1. de hom. corrupt. c. 8. § 9. Dico, inquit, nullum peccatum unum numero posse esse commune omnibus hominibus. Nam peccatum, vel qualitas est, vel actio. Qualitas, ut peccatum originale. Actio, ut peccatum quodlibet actuale. At nulla qualitas, una eademque numero potest pluribus subjectis communicari: ut candor qui est in nive, idem numero non potest esse in cygno, aut lana. Actiones autem sunt suppositorum. Quare idem homicidium a Caino patratum non potest esse a Lamecho. Itaque nego peccatum illud Adami esse peccatum Originale. Non enim potest omnibus esse commune, sive numero, quia est actio: sive specie, quia est individuus actus. Et rursus eodem capite § 11. Omne peccatum vel qualitas est, vel actio, ut diximus, eius cujus dicitur peccatum. At hic actus Adami, neque qualitas est nostra: nam ne est quidem: ac proinde non potest esse qualitas: tum actio, qualitasque longe differunt: neque est etiam actus noster: quia idem numero actus non est variorum suppositorum. Ergo is actus Adami non est nostrum peccatum: nedum sit nostrum originale. Haec eius ratio eadem est cum hac mea, si actio Adami est nostra, eius suppositum est nostrum: Sunt enim actiones suppositorum.

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.