FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §142

Cap. XII: Placeus's duplex reply — being and dying in Adam without immediate imputation

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Yet we were in Adam two ways, Daubuz says — ἁπλῶς and κατὰ μέρος, representatively and naturally. Whole human nature was in Adam without doubt (so Thomas on Romans 5, lecture 3 near the end: we were in Adam by bodily substance and by seminal reason); and in Adam the person sinned, so nature was guilty of the fault then done and of the punishment to come. First: Placeus is not arguing here but answering. Is that answer true or false? If true, they are not 'deceived by deceiving.' If false, the falsehood should have been shown. The learned man does not show it. Inside Placeus's reply there lay a double argument — one from existence, one from death. From existence: we are not said to have sinned in Adam otherwise than to have been in him. But we are not said to have been in him by imputation; his being is not imputed to us — it is only propagated into us. Therefore we are not to be said to have sinned in him by imputation either, but by a real sharing of his sin through natural propagation. Again: we did not sin in Adam otherwise than we were in him. But we were not in him immediately, only through intermediate parents descended from him. Therefore we did not sin in him immediately, only through our parents' original vices descended from him. From death: we are not said to have sinned in Adam otherwise than to die in him. But we die in him not because his death is imputed, but because death is actually propagated into us. Therefore we sinned in him not by imputed sin, but by sin actually propagated into us. Does the learned man prove or answer anything that breaks or even weakens arguments of this kind? Nothing at all.

Latin

Atqui in Adamo fuimus dupliciter ἁπλῶς & κατὰ μέρος, scilicet repraesentative & naturaliter; tota quidem natura humana, quae citra dubium fuit in Adamo (ut ait Thom. in cap. 5. ad Rom. Lect. 3. circa finem; Nos fuimus in Adamo secundum corpulentam substantiam & secundum seminalem rationem) & per personam peccavit in Adamo, rea fuit & culpae tunc commissae & poenae futurae. Primum non argumentatur Placeus, sed respondet. Est-ne igitur illud quod respondet verum, an falsum? Si verum, non fallendo falluntur. Si falsum, falsitas ostendenda fuit. Id quod a viro docto non fit. Latebat autem in responsione illa Placei duplex argumentum, unum ab existentia, alterum a morte. Illud sic potest concipi; Non aliter in Adamo peccasse quam fuisse dicimur. Atqui in Adamo non dicimur fuisse imputative; eius enim esse nobis non imputatur: sed tantum eius esse in nos est propagatum. Ergo nec peccasse dicendi sumus in Adamo imputative, sed reali peccati eius per propagationem naturalem communicatione. Item sic; Non aliter in Adamo peccavimus quam fuimus. Atqui non fuimus in Adamo proxime seu immediate, sed mediantibus parentibus nostris intermediis ab eo propagatis. Ergo non peccavimus in Adamo proxime seu immediate, sed mediantibus parentum nostrorum ab eo propagatis originalibus vitiis. Argumentum vero ductum a morte, sic potest formari. Non aliter in Adamo peccavisse quam mori dicimur. Sed morimur in Adamo, non imputata nobis Adami morte, sed morte reapse in nos propagata. Ergo peccavimus in Adamo, non imputato eius peccato, sed peccato reapse in nos propagato. Probat-ne, aut respondet aliquid Vir doctus, quod hujusmodi argumenta destruat, aut aliquomodo infirmet? Nihil prorsus.

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.