FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §187

Man. Post. Cap. II §XIX: Placeus Theses §VII / Pighius / Martyr; Garissoles on alien sin

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

Where or when, then, that agreement between us was made, I cannot guess. Grant it was made: what did I say that contradicts that sense of the word imputation? I wrote in the Theses just named, § VII, that Adam's actual disobedience can be said to be imputed to us in this sense: because of the sin that inheres in us from birth we are worthy to be held in the same place as if we had committed that disobedience. Is that true or false? If false, he ought to have shown the falsehood. If true, it cannot clash with mediate imputation, which the learned man himself does not deny is true—for truth does not clash with truth. It is nothing but a description of mediate imputation, which I set against Pighius's view that the sole guilt of origin is Adam's transgression. 'Cumni,' says Martyr, 'wants us all born liable—not because of any vice, fault, or depravity we have in ourselves.' I said in the Epistle that when hereditary vice makes us as worthy of death as Adam, nothing prevents Adam's sin from being said to be imputed to us in the sense in which the Apostle said that if someone has kept the law, his foreskin is imputed for circumcision (Romans 2:26). Is that true or not? D. Garissoles neither affirms nor denies. What does he do, then? Hear him. Garissoles: So Paul will have said foreskin is imputed for circumcision because it is counted as if circumcised. But here we are not dealing with the imputation of any thing whatever, but with the imputation of another's sin. Who has ever taught, or persuaded himself, that by that imputation of sin one must understand a comparison of different sins done by different persons, or a parity among different sins as to punishment or guilt? Neither Scripture nor ordinary speech allows that.

Latin

Ubi igitur aut quando inter nos ea facta fuerit conventio, diviniare non possum. Fac tamen fuisse factam, quid dixi, quod ei vocis imputationis significatui repugnet? Scripsi in Thesibus supra dictis § VII. Actualem inobedientiam Adami dici posse nobis imputari, hoc sensu, quod ob peccatum nobis ab origine inhaerens digni sumus, qui eodem loco habeamur, ac si inobedientiam illam admisissemus. Est-ne id verum, an falsum? Si falsum, debuit ostendere falsitatem. Si verum, utique non repugnat imputationi mediatae, quam esse veram ipse vir doctus non diffitetur: verum enim vero non repugnat. Imo nihil aliud est quam descriptio imputationis mediatae, quam opposui opinioni Pighii, culpam originis unicam statuentis transgressionem Adami. Cumni, inquit Martyr, nos omnes vult nasci obnoxios, non propter aliquod vitium, aut culpam, aut deprauationem, quam in nobis habeamus. Dixi in Epistola, cum vitium hereditarium nos aeque morte dignos ac Adamum faciat, nihil obstare, quominus peccatum Adami nobis eo sensu dicatur imputari quo dixit Apostolus, si quis legem servaverit, illius praeputium in circuncisionem imputari. Est-ne id verum, nec-ne? Neque ait, neque negat D. Garissolius. Quid igitur facit? eum audi. GAR. Dixerit ergo Paulus, imputari praeputium in circuncisionem, quia eodem loco habeatur ac si circumcisum esset. At hic non de imputatione cujusvis rei agitur, sed de imputatione peccati alieni. Quis autem hactenus vel docuit, vel sibi persuasit, per imputationem illam peccati, intelligendam collationem diversorum peccatorum a diversis personis patratorum, vel paritatem inter diversa peccata ratione poenae aut reatus? Hoc neque Scriptura, neque communis ipse loquendi usus admittit.

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.