Philip of Harveng's scholastic treatise examining Adam's salvation, original sin, and human nature through systematic theological inquiry characteristic of 12th-century monastic scholarship.

Historical and Manuscript Context

Authorship and Date: Responsio de salute primi hominis (“Response on the Salvation of the First Man”) is a 12th-century theological treatise attributed to Philip of Harveng (Philippus Harvengius), the Premonstratensian abbot of Bonne-Espérance in Hainaut (modern Belgium) fr.m.wikisource.org . Philip died in 1183, and the work is generally dated to the latter part of his life (c.1170s), aligning with his tenure as abbot. The treatise was prompted by a doctrinal controversy of the time: whether Adam, the first man, attained eternal salvation. Notably, some decades earlier the influential abbot Rupert of Deutz (d. 1129) had cast doubt on Adam’s salvation – he remarked that “Adam’s salvation is freely denied by many and not defended with certainty by anyone” fr.m.wikisource.org . Philip’s Responsio was written as a corrective response to this uncertainty, firmly defending the traditional view that Adam was saved. The work thus belongs to the emerging “quaestio” genre of scholastic theology, where a specific question is posed and answered in a structured argument. Indeed, contemporary sources classify Philip’s treatises on Adam’s salvation and on Solomon’s damnation as small works in the style of a disputed question, akin to the method of Peter Abelard fr.wikipedia.org .

Transmission and Manuscripts: The text circulated among medieval scholars and was preserved in monastic libraries. In the 19th century it was published in Migne’s Patrologia Latina (vol. 203, cols. 593–622) from available manuscripts fr.m.wikisource.org . One important manuscript witness is Paris, BnF nouvelle acquisition latine 1429 (12th century), which contains a compilation of works by Hugh of St. Victor and Philip of Harveng brill.com . In that codex, Philip’s Responsio on Adam’s salvation appears alongside his Responsio de damnatione Salomonis , indicating these texts were copied together and valued in theological collections. The manuscript tradition suggests the treatise was known in Northern France/Flanders soon after its composition. By the high Middle Ages, references to the work itself are sparse – likely because its content had been absorbed into mainstream doctrine – but its inclusion in later medieval libraries and its eventual printing by Migne attest to its survival. Modern scholars have confirmed Philip’s authorship and the text is now accessible in Latin through critical compilations fr.m.wikisource.org . No medieval vernacular translations are known, implying it circulated mainly among Latin-literate clergy and theologians.

Attribution: There is no doubt about Philip of Harveng’s authorship. Medieval bibliographers and modern historians alike credit him, and the style and perspectives align with Philip’s other works. The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique notes the treatise explicitly as Philip’s, composed roughly 50 years after Rupert’s statements fr.m.wikisource.org . Unlike some works of the era, there are no competing attributions. Thus, Responsio de salute primi hominis can be firmly placed in the context of late 12th-century Premonstratensian theology under Philip’s name, reflecting that order’s engagement in scholastic debates.

Theological Content and Doctrinal Argumentation

Central Question: The treatise squarely addresses the fate of Adam’s soul – did Adam ultimately attain salvation (eternal life with God) after his fall into sin, or was he condemned? Philip of Harveng argues in favor of Adam’s salvation , marshalling Scripture and patristic authority to make his case. This question had implications for original sin, redemption, and the scope of Christ’s saving work, and Philip treats it with earnest theological rigor.

Structure of the Argument: Philip’s response proceeds systematically. In what appears to be a chaptered format (the Patrologia edition has ~27 chapters), he first examines biblical evidence , then theological reasoning, and finally tradition fr.m.wikisource.org . We can summarize his content in three main movements:

1. Signs of Grace in Genesis: Philip points out subtle indications in the Book of Genesis that Adam repented and remained in God’s favor after the Fall fr.m.wikisource.org . For example, Adam and Eve, once expelled from Eden, do not live as apostates; rather, the narrative shows them continuing to acknowledge God. Eve’s statements upon the births of her sons demonstrate faith: “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord ” (Gen 4:1) and “God has appointed me another seed” (Gen 4:25) – these expressions attribute blessings to God fr.m.wikisource.org . Likewise, their son Abel offers pleasing sacrifice to God, indicating the first family raised their children in devotion fr.m.wikisource.org . These biblical details, Philip argues, imply that Adam was neither a despairing rebel nor cut off from grace , but rather “a believer and a penitent” even after his sin fr.m.wikisource.org . Adam’s humble acceptance of labor and mortality can be seen as penance. In support, Philip likely cites Genesis 4: the institution of sacrifice and prayer among Adam’s descendants as a sign that Adam himself persisted in faith. Such indices set the stage that Adam repented sincerely.

2. Wisdom 10:1–2 – Adam’s Redemption Prophesied: The crux of Philip’s biblical argument comes from the Book of Wisdom , which he uses as a decisive scriptural proof. Wisdom 10:1-2 (a deuterocanonical text highly regarded in medieval exegesis) speaks of Adam: “She [Divine Wisdom] preserved the first-formed father of the world… andbrought him out of his sin ” fr.m.wikisource.org . Philip underscores this “direct and formal” scriptural testimony that Adam was healed or delivered from his transgression fr.m.wikisource.org . In other words, Scripture itself suggests Adam obtained forgiveness. (It’s noteworthy that Rupert of Deutz had discounted Wisdom as non-canonical and thus ignored this passage fr.m.wikisource.org ; Philip, by contrast, accepts its authority, reflecting the broader medieval canon). In Philip’s exposition, Wisdom 10:2 is a linchpin: it explicitly indicates Adam’s repentance and justification by God’s grace. From this he concludes that Adam died in God’s friendship. Philip likely bolsters this with other biblical themes – for instance, he may have noted God clothing Adam and Eve in garments (Gen 3:21) as a token of care, or the long life and progeny given to Adam as signs of divine favor. But Wisdom is his strongest biblical warrant: Adam was “drawn out of his sin” by God , which plainly implies ultimate salvation fr.m.wikisource.org .

3. Patristic Tradition and Theological Reasoning: Having established a biblical basis, Philip then leans on the consensus of the Church Fathers and the logic of doctrine. He notes that early Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that Adam was saved – indeed, by late antiquity this belief was nearly universal fr.m.wikisource.org . Philip cites authorities like St. Augustine , who taught that almost the whole Church affirms that Christ delivered Adam from Hell , and that we should not suppose this belief to be in vain even if Scripture is not explicit. (Augustine, Epistle 164 , n.6, is quoted: “with regard to the first man… almost the entire Church confesses that Christ freed him from limbo, nor should we think this belief unfounded”.) He likely references Augustine’s opinion that Adam and Eve, “by living justly afterwards… are believed to have been freed from ultimate punishment by the Lord’s blood” fr.m.wikisource.org . Philip also invokes the ancient Apostolic belief in Christ’s Descent into Hell : according to the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus and numerous Fathers, when Christ died, he descended to the realm of the dead (limbus patrum) and rescued the righteous, foremost Adam. Nearly every Church Father – Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Augustine and others – taught that on Holy Saturday Christ “stormed Hell” to redeem Adam along with the patriarchs. Philip recounts how only a few heretical voices (e.g. the 2nd-century Gnostic Tatian and his Encratite followers) dared to claim Adam was damned – and they were swiftly condemned by the orthodox Fathers as in serious error. Thus, tradition stands firmly on Adam’s salvation.

Philip likely structures this section around testimonies: he “finally leans on tradition” in chapters 25–27 of the treatise fr.m.wikisource.org . He may quote St. Irenaeus who reasoned that it was fitting for Christ (the “New Adam”) to undo Adam’s loss: “For if the enemy held Adam forever, the victory of Christ the second Adam would be palid” , since Christ’s triumph would seem incomplete if the head of the human race remained in bondage fr.m.wikisource.org . This recapitulation theme – that Jesus as the New Adam must rescue the Old Adam to fully display His victory over Satan – appears in Irenaeus and would buttress Philip’s argument from a perspective of divine justice and cosmic drama. In essence, Christ’s victory is most fully shown by the redemption of Adam , the very first sinner.

Conclusion of Doctrine: Having assembled these points, Philip concludes that Adam was saved by God’s mercy and Christ’s merits. Adam repented and lived in faith; God promised redemption (Wisdom 10); and through Christ’s descent into Hell, Adam was absolved and brought to eternal life. Theologically, this affirms the scope of Christ’s redemption extending to the very origin of humanity. It also offers a hopeful narrative: that no sinner, not even Adam who introduced sin, is beyond the reach of divine mercy. Philip’s Responsio thus defends an orthodox position that had pastoral significance – reassuring the faithful that the economy of salvation had, in Christ, healed even the wound of Adam’s fall.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fra_Angelico_024.jpg

Christ leading Adam out of Hades (Fra Angelico’s _Harrowing of Hell , c.1440). Medieval tradition held that Jesus descended to the realm of the dead to liberate Adam and the patriarchs, a scene frequently depicted in Christian art. Philip of Harveng’s treatise draws on this belief, asserting that the “first man” was indeed saved by Christ fr.m.wikisource.org ._

Literary Structure and Rhetorical Style

Form and Organization: Responsio de salute primi hominis is presented as a structured response to a question, characteristic of 12th-century scholastic treatises. It likely opens with a short prologue stating the question and its importance. According to scholars, the text is divided into chapters (around 27) fr.m.wikisource.org , each developing a step in the argument. The outline follows a logical progression: first setting forth the problem (doubt about Adam’s fate), then offering evidence and rebuttal, and finally drawing a conclusion. Philip’s method here mirrors the scholastic quaestio format: he poses the question, gathers authorities (auctores) , and provides a reasoned resolution. However, the tone is not as dryly dialectical as later Scholastic summae; it retains a monastic and pastoral character, guiding the reader through Scripture and tradition to a pious conclusion.

Prologue and Style: In the prologue, Philip appeals to the reader’s earnest desire for truth. Notably, he employs a refined Latin style with classical allusions. For example, one source notes that Philip’s prologue uses the phrase “quia ergo animo festinanti nihil satis festinatur” (“because nothing is ever fast enough for a hastening mind”) books.openedition.org . This phrase, adapted from Sallust and also used by Bernard of Clairvaux, reveals Philip’s humanistic learning and rhetorical flair. Such a stylistic flourish at the outset sets an elevated, scholarly tone. Philip writes as a cultured abbot-theologian: his Latin is clear and polished, imbued with biblical language and patristic echoes. He often introduces authorities with reverence (e.g., “as Saint Augustine wisely says…”).

Use of Authorities: The treatise’s structure interweaves exegesis and citation. Philip quotes or references Scripture frequently – Genesis narratives, the Book of Wisdom, New Testament hints (such as Romans 5’s contrast of Adam and Christ) – using the Glossa ordinaria and traditional interpretations. He then brings in Church Fathers; rather than merely listing them, he likely paraphrases key points to integrate into his argument. For instance, when discussing tradition, he might present Augustine’s view in a cohesive manner rather than verbatim, to maintain a flowing argument. This shows a didactic style: Philip isn’t just proof-texting; he is explicating and synthesizing sources to lead the reader to agreement.

Rhetorical and Polemical Tone: While the work is irenic in affirming a common belief, it does carry a polemical undertone against dissenters like Rupert. Without naming Rupert explicitly (which courtesy might have prevented), Philip systematically dismantles the position that doubted Adam’s salvation. His rhetoric contrasts the “many” who “liberally deny” Adam’s salvation with the near-unanimous teaching of the Church fr.m.wikisource.org . He uses rhetorical questions and exclamation in places to emphasize how startling it would be, for example, to imagine Christ’s victory incomplete or the first patriarch lost. The style is erudite yet aimed to convince a broad ecclesiastical audience. He writes with pastoral concern too – underlying his arguments is the reassurance of God’s mercy for even the greatest sinner. Thus, the voice of the treatise is that of a learned abbot instructing and correcting his brethren with authoritative support and reasoned persuasion.

Literary Influences: As noted, Philip’s method parallels that of contemporaries like Peter Abelard and later scholastics: pose a question, cite authorities “pro and contra” (though in Philip’s case, the contra is mostly implicit, as he spends little time on the negative case since it lacked authoritative support), then resolve the doubt. Unlike Abelard’s Sic et Non , Philip’s Responsio is not an open-ended collection of quotes but a resolved essay – he clearly states the conclusion that Adam was saved. In terms of genre, it can be seen as both a theological tract and an open letter. (Philip wrote some of his treatises as letters to colleagues; indeed, his other Responsio on Solomon’s damnation was addressed to a Premonstratensian correspondent. The Responsio de salute primi hominis may likewise have been intended for a learned audience in monastic or cathedral schools rather than a general congregation.)

In summary, the structure of Responsio de salute primi hominis is lucid and orderly, reflecting early scholastic discipline. Its rhetoric blends scholarly argumentation with a devout tone , guiding readers to affirm a point of doctrine through reason enlightened by authority. Philip’s elegant Latin and use of classical and patristic references exemplify the 12th-century renaissance of learning, even as he applies that learning to a concrete question of faith.

Reception History and Influence

Contemporary Impact: Philip of Harveng’s defense of Adam’s salvation appears to have reinforced the orthodox consensus rather than ignited new debates – and that was precisely its aim. By the end of the 12th century, the view that Adam was saved had been solidified as the “common opinion” in the Latin Church fr.m.wikisource.org . Philip’s treatise helped ensure that Rupert of Deutz’s contrary stance remained a minority position with little subsequent following. Later 12th- and 13th-century theologians, when touching on the topic, tend either to silently assume Adam’s salvation or to refute the opposing view tersely. The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique observes that after Philip’s time, theologians merely cite Rupert’s doubt as an anomaly “refuted briefly,” while treating the belief in Adam’s salvation as effectively settled truth fr.m.wikisource.org . In this sense, Philip’s Responsio achieved its goal: it armed the theological community with a clear articulation of the pro-salvation position, making it easier to dismiss objections.

Scholastic and Ecclesiastical References: In the great 13th-century summae, explicit discussion of Adam’s fate is rare because it was largely uncontroversial by then. Thomas Aquinas , for example, in the Summa Theologiae does not dedicate a question to Adam’s personal salvation – he assumes that Christ’s descent into hell freed the Old Testament righteous , among whom Adam is included. Aquinas echoes Augustine that by virtue of Christ’s passion, Adam was delivered from original sin’s debt (cf. Summa Theol. III, Q52, a.7). While Aquinas does not cite Philip, his stance reflects the tradition Philip had championed. We also find that medieval biblical glosses and commentaries (e.g. on Wisdom 10:2 or 1 Peter 3:19) uniformly interpret those passages as evidence of Adam’s rescue, showing the incorporation of Philip’s line of reasoning into mainstream exegesis.

Hagiographical and Liturgical Echoes: Adam and Eve were never formally canonized saints in the Western Church, yet an implicit reverence for Adam’s salvation persisted. Liturgically, the Exsultet of the Easter Vigil praises the “felix culpa” (happy fault) of Adam which merited so great a Redeemer – implying that Adam’s fall was ultimately remedied by Christ. This resonance – that Adam was redeemed – suffused Christian thought and preaching. Philip’s treatise may not have been widely read outside scholarly circles, but its content filtered into sermons and catechesis. Preachers could confidently proclaim that Christ “broke the chains of Hell and led forth Adam” on Holy Saturday, a theme popular in homilies. Thus, the Responsio ’s ideas had a broad diffuse influence by buttressing the narrative that became standard in Christian teaching.

Later Theological Discussion: In the late Middle Ages and Counter-Reformation, whenever the question of Adam arose, the answer was firmly in line with Philip’s conclusions. For instance, the 16th-century theologian Alfonsus a Castro (in Adversus Haereses , 1534) lists the denial of Adam’s salvation as a heresy under the entry “Adam and Eve,” reinforcing that by then it was considered doctrinally deviant to claim Adam was damned fr.wikisource.org . He, like others, would have been heir to the tradition solidified in the 12th century. We also see Protestant reformers largely agreeing – the harrowing of hell and redemption of Old Testament figures, Adam included, was maintained in Lutheran and Anglican thought, for example (though some debates about the nature of Christ’s descent did occur, they did not typically single out Adam for exclusion). In summary, no major later theologian challenged the conclusion that Philip defended; the treatise’s position became the de facto teaching in both Catholic and broader Christian theology.

Artistic and Cultural Reception: The belief in Adam’s salvation has been vividly portrayed in Christian art and literature, demonstrating the idea’s penetration into the religious imagination. Medieval mystery plays and poetry sometimes featured Adam awaiting redemption. More tangibly, iconography of the Harrowing of Hell (Christ rescuing Adam) became ubiquitous in both East and West. The image of Christ grasping Adam’s hand – as if to pull him from the grave – appears in Byzantine mosaics, Gothic cathedral sculptures, illuminated manuscripts, and Renaissance frescoes. This enduring motif (see image above) attests that the Church as a whole joyfully received the doctrine that Adam was saved. Philip’s Responsio provided a scholarly backbone to that doctrine. While art and popular piety do not cite academic treatises, they reflect the outcome of the theological consensus that works like Philip’s helped to achieve. In that sense, the Responsio ’s reception is most concretely seen not in citations, but in the confident silence of later orthodoxy: by making the case so thoroughly, Philip left virtually no doubt among subsequent generations. Adam, the first sinner, was redeemed – a belief enshrined in theology, celebrated in Easter liturgy, and colorfully depicted in Christian art fr.m.wikisource.org .

Scholarly Attention: Modern scholars have shown interest in Responsio de salute primi hominis as part of a broader study of medieval theology and exegesis. It is recognized as a valuable witness to 12th-century thought – illustrating how medieval scholars handled questions not directly defined by Scripture. Recent academic work, such as an analysis of Philip’s companion treatise on Solomon’s damnation fr.wikipedia.org , sheds light on his method and sources. Philip’s role as a Premonstratensian thinker bridging monastic tradition and nascent Scholasticism has been highlighted in studies of Premonstratensian intellectual life. In particular, historians note how Philip followed in the footsteps of figures like Abelard in applying reasoned analysis to topics of doctrinal curiosity. Thus, the treatise’s modern reception is as a piece of intellectual history: it is mined for what it reveals about the development of the doctrine of original sin and redemption, and about the network of 12th-century theological discourse (e.g., the influence of Rupert of Deutz and the response by Philip).

In conclusion, Responsio de salute primi hominis enjoyed a quiet but profound reception. By articulating and affirming the salvation of Adam, it helped cement a teaching that became part of the bedrock of Christian doctrine. Later generations, from scholastics to artists, built upon the certainty that Philip and his contemporaries had secured: that the story of salvation indeed begins with the rescue of our first father, Adam, by the New Adam, Christ. The treatise stands as a testament to the medieval Church’s confidence in the triumph of grace from the very dawn of human history.

Sources: Primary text in Migne, Patrologia Latina vol. 203, cols. 593–622. See also fr.m.wikisource.org fr.m.wikisource.org for historical context and content summary, and Augustine, Ep. 164.6 (PL 33, 710-711) cited in Philip’s support. Further discussion in P. Glorieux, La Littérature Quodlibétique (1935) and Carol Neel, “Philip of Harvengt and Premonstratensian Theology” in Church History oxfordreference.com . The iconography of Adam’s salvation is discussed in É. Mâle, Religious Art in France: The Thirteenth Century , pp. 52–54.

Sources

1. fr.m.wikisource.org
2. fr.m.wikisource.org
3. fr.m.wikisource.org
4. fr.m.wikisource.org
5. fr.m.wikisource.org
6. fr.m.wikisource.org
7. fr.m.wikisource.org
8. fr.m.wikisource.org
9. fr.m.wikisource.org
10. fr.m.wikisource.org
11. fr.m.wikisource.org
12. fr.m.wikisource.org
13. fr.m.wikisource.org
14. fr.m.wikisource.org
15. fr.m.wikisource.org
16. fr.m.wikisource.org
17. fr.wikisource.org
18. fr.m.wikisource.org
19. oxfordreference.com