On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §133

Cap. XI: Jerome on the Decalogue — hereditary evil, not antecedent imputation

As for Jerome, Garissoles does quote his words — but how does Jerome untie the knot? How does he read the Decalogue's 'I visit the fathers' sins on the children'? Does he take it, as Garissoles does, of immediate imputation? Not at all. In the same place Jerome says they were suffering a hidden scandal: it looked like God's injustice that one should sin and another pay. If God visits the fathers' sins on the children to the third and fourth generation, it seems unjust that one sins and another is punished. But the words that follow — 'to those who hate Me' — clear the scandal. They are not punished in the third and fourth generation because their fathers sinned (the sinful fathers themselves ought to have been punished), but because they became imitators of their fathers and hated God, hereditary evil and impiety growing from the root into the branches as well. What could fit our view more closely? A little later Jerome cites Proverbs: as sour grapes hurt the teeth and smoke the eyes, so iniquity hurts those who use it — so it is plain that not other people's teeth ache, but the teeth of those who ate the sour grapes. The point of the place is: saying 'the fathers ate sour grapes and the sons' teeth went numb' is ridiculous and follows nothing; so it is unjust and twisted that fathers sin and sons and grandsons are tormented. What could be said more plainly against antecedent imputation?

Latin

Ad Hieronymum autem quod attinet, eius quidem ea sunt verba quae D. G. laudat. Sed quomodo nodum illum solvit? quomodo verba Decalogi, qui reddo peccata patrum super filios &c. interpretatur? Num ea, sicut D. G. de imputatione immediata accipit? Nullo modo. Scandalum, inquit ibidem, patiebamur occultum, quod injustitia videretur Dei, alium peccare, & alium luere peccata. Si enim reddit peccata patrum super filios in tertiam & quartam generationem, injustum videtur ut alius peccet & alius puniatur. Sed ex eo quod sequitur: His qui me oderunt, comminationis sive praecepti scandalum solvitur. Non enim ideo puniuntur in tertia & in quarta generatione, quia deliquerunt patres eorum: cum patres potius qui fuerunt peccatores, puniri debuerint: sed quia patrum extiterunt aemulatores & oderunt Deum, haereditario malo & impietate in ramos quoque de radice crescente. Quid potuit dici nostrae sententiae accommodatius? Habet idem Hieronymus paulo post haec verba. Scriptum est in Proverbiis: Sicut uva acerba dentibus noxia est: & fumus oculis: sic iniquitas his qui utuntur ea. Ex quo perspicuum est non aliorum dolere dentes & obstupescere, sed eorum qui uvam acerbam comederint. Est autem loci istius hic sensus: Quomodo si quis velit dicere: Patres uvam acerbam comederunt, & dentes filiorum obstupuerunt: ridiculum est, & nullam habens consequentiam: sic iniquum est atque perversum peccare patres, & filios nepotesque cruciari. Quid contra imputationem antecedentem dici potuit disertius?

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. 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.