On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §143

Cap. XII: Thomas, Caesar–Marius, tribunals — no representative covenant proof

Does he deny or admit that we did not sin in Adam otherwise than we were? He only says we were in Adam two ways — representatively and naturally. Does he then affirm or deny that Adam's being is imputed to us? He should at least have explained that distinction — and whether we likewise sinned in Adam both ways, and died in him both ways. Does he prove the double mode? Not at all. A Reformed man speaking to a Reformed man, instead of Scripture or a reason, he cites Thomas: we were in Adam by bodily substance and by seminal reason. Is that 'being in Adam doubly' — representatively and naturally? And did we likewise sin in him? He dresses it with a likeness: if someone once truly said many Mariuses are in one Caesar, how much more truly may we say that in one sinning Adam there were many Adams — indeed all, except Christ the God-man (θεάνθρωπος). What could be less to the point? Does it follow that some act of Caesar is to be imputed to many Mariuses? Were many Mariuses in Caesar representatively and naturally, or by bodily substance and seminal reason? Do you not pity me, prudent reader, stuck in business of this weight with such disputants? Further, he says, let those learned men go who now err only by too high an opinion of their own subtlety and knowledge. Whether we err, let the reader judge. Whether that opinion is in us, he knows who searches hearts; as far as we can we cast it off and hang on him alone. But let him continue: let them consult the judges' tribunals and the lawyers' benches. Do not public actors, ambassadors, notaries, and such who stand for others also report the absent, set them as present, represent them — if I may use that ambiguous word? And how much more in this covenant would the chiefs, father, stock, head, and author of the whole race have represented all posterity in a public common pact? Fine consequence! So Adam was our ambassador — or our notary! He was at least our father, stock, and head — namely after he begot us; before he began to beget he was certainly no father. Better to go to the divine oracles that cry: the father shall not bear the son's iniquity, nor the son the father's.

Latin

Negat-ne an fatetur, nos non aliter in Adamo peccasse quam fuisse? Tantum ait nos fuisse in Adamo dupliciter, repraesentative & naturaliter. Aitne ergo, an negat esse Adami nobis imputari? Saltem explicasset quid sibi voluit illa distinctione; & an similiter peccaverimus in Adamo repraesentative & naturaliter, ac itidem in eo dupliciter mortui simus? Probatne igitur duplicem illum modum? Nequaquam. Tantum Reformatus apud Reformatum agens pro testimonio Scripturae, pro ratione, Thomam Aquinatem laudat dicentem, Nos fuisse in Adamo secundum corpulentam substantiam & secundum seminalem rationem. Hoccine est esse in Adamo dupliciter, repraesentative scilicet & naturaliter? Et, an similiter peccavimus in Adamo? Illustrat tamen hoc similitudine, Et si quondam vere dixit ille, in uno Caesare plures inesse Marios, quam verius nobis dicere licet, in uno Adamo peccante plures, imo omnes (excepto Christo θεανθρώπῳ) fuisse Adamos. Quid potuit afferri minus appositum? Num inde potuit colligi, aliquam Caesaris actionem pluribus Mariis imputandam fuisse? Num fuerunt plures Marii repraesentative & naturaliter, vel secundum corpulentam substantiam & seminalem rationem, in Caesare? Non miseret te mei, Lector prudentissime, cui cum talibus disputatoribus tanti momenti negotium est? Porro, inquit, adeant illi Docti viri, qui nonnisi nimia subtilitatis & scientiae opinione nunc errant. Erremusne, necne, tuum esto, quisquis haec legis, iudicium. Nobisne insit nimia subtilitatis & scientiae opinio, is novit qui corda scrutatur: Nos certe, quantum possumus, abiecta eiusmodi opinione, ab eo uno pendemus. Sed pergat, Adeant, inquam, consulant tribunalia iudicum, subsellia Iurisconsultorum. Annon actores publici, legati, tabelliones, & eiusmodi homines, qui pro aliis stant, eos etiam absentes referant, ceu praesentes sistant, repraesentent, ut hoc, etsi ambiguo, nuncupar verbo? Et quanto magis in hoc foedere: optimates, pater, stirps, caput, auctor totius generis humani, posteros omnes in publico & communi pacto repraesentaverit? Egregia consequentia! scilicet Adamus erat legatus noster, aut tabellio noster! Erat saltem pater, stirps, caput nostrum, nimirum postquam nos genuit: antequam enim inciperet gignere profecto pater non fuit. Docet ergo nos potius adire oracula divina clamantia, neque patrem filii, neque filium patris iniquitatem laturum.

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.