On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §138

Cap. XII: Daubuz's arguments do not prove antecedent/immediate imputation

Chapter XII. That Lord Daubuz's arguments do not prove antecedent or immediate imputation. With Garissoles's book there also appeared a letter and a farewell poem from Charles Daubuz, minister of the Word in the church at Nerac — warm praise for Garissoles, and an attack on Placeus. He urges the same case for imputing Adam's sin, only in slightly different words. He opens from a covenant made with Adam, and he takes that as given rather than proving it. We were with Adam, he says; and as agents and consenters with him and through him we deserve the same penalty. But how, I ask, were we with Adam when we did not yet exist? Existing comes before existing-with-another. How did we act with him? Only what exists acts, and that as a person or subject — for actions belong to subjects. How did we consent with him and through him? Our consent is an act of our own will precisely as we differ from Adam. If by 'consent' he means nothing but the hereditary corruption born in us, he gets only mediate imputation — which Placeus already grants. He adds the lawyers' maxim: whoever acts through another seems to act through himself. That, I say, was not to be assumed but proved: that through Adam we did what Adam did. Did Adam heed his wife in our place? Were we the authors of her sin? Or did he sin as our servant while we were the principal causes?

Latin

CAPUT XII. Imputationem antecedentem seu immediatam non esse probatam argumentis Dom. Daubuz. Nam cum libro D. Garissolii prodit ad eum Epistola & carmen propempticum Caroli Daubuz V.D. in Ecclesia Neracensi Ministri, quibus vehementer eum laudat, & in Placeum invehitur. Affert autem pro imputatione peccati Adamici argumenta eadem, sed verbis paulo diversis. Orditur autem a foedere inito cum Adamo, idque supponit non probat: Aitque nos cum Adamo fuisse; et ut cum eo, ac per eum agentes et consentientes, pari poena plectendos. At, amabo te, quomodo cum Adamo fuimus, qui tunc nulli fuimus? Prius enim est nos esse, quam esse cum alio. Quomodo cum eo egimus? Non enim agit nisi qui est, & quidem persona vel suppositum: actiones enim sunt suppositorum. Quomodo cum eo & per eum consensimus? Est enim consensio nostra voluntatis nostrae, quatenus ab Adamo differimus, actio. Quod si hanc consensionem nihil aliud vult esse quam corruptionem haereditariam nobis ingenitam, ex ea nihil conficietur praeter imputationem mediatam, quam Placeus probat. Addit pro ratione, Quandoquidem ex Iurisconsultorum placitis, qui per alium facit, per se ipsum facere videtur. At, inquam, id erat non supponendum sed probandum, Nos per Adamum id fecisse, quod fecit Adamus. Auscultavitne voci uxoris suae loco nostro? nosne illi fuimus autores ut peccaret? aut peccavitne ut minister noster, nos ut causae principales?

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.