On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §196

Man. Post. Cap. II: Placeus — three reasons joined; French par consequent; Nero / Matt–Luke

Placeus: First he pins on me an argument that is not mine. As I said, I joined this with the prior point so that from those two I could draw a third, where the reason for imputation chiefly sits. That is plain from the third reason he says he gathered from my letters in this same chapter 2 section x, e points are linked; here he split them so you can mark a double change. First, for hereditary corruption he put a vice that does not exist in us. Next he dropped the causal link—'therefore,' 'so,' or the like—matching the French par consequent I had used in that letter, from which it is clear I take the reason of imputation from habitual consent to that sin as included in hereditary corruption, and that I gather this consent because that corruption is nothing but the habitual depravity of that first actual sin, which it left in Adam's soul and which, propagated into us, inclines us to like sin. I am not sure he is not also arguing here against the Lord's own words in Matthew 23:34 and Luke 11:50-51. Why, for example, could Nero's cruel deeds not somehow be charged to someone equally cruel and savage in mind, when it is not by his will that he fails to do the same—being equally cruel?

Latin

PLAC. Primo tribuit mihi argumentationem non meam. Hoc enim, ut dixi, conjunxi cum superiori, ut ex duobus illis tertium colligerem, in quo ratio imputationis potissimum consistit. Id quod ex tertia illa ratione, quam ex literis meis se collegisse profitetur hoc eodem cap. 2. § x. pag. 35. 36. liquere potest. In ea enim copulantur ista tria quae hoc loco divisit sic ut duplex mutatio notari possit. Primo enim pro corruptione haereditaria reposuit vitium in nobis inexsistens. Deinde omisit conjunctionem causalem propterea, adeo, aut similem, respondentem eo loco vocibus gallicis par consequent, quibus in illa epistola usus fueram, & ex quibus apparet, rationem imputationis me petere a consensu habituali ad illud peccatum in corruptione haereditaria incluso: hunc autem consensum ex eo colligere, quod illa corruptio nihil aliud est quam primi illius peccati actualis pravitas habitualis, quam in Adami anima reliquit, & quae in nos propagata nos ad simile peccatum inclinat. Caeterum nescio annon etiam hoc loco adversus ipsius Domini verba disputare videatur, quae habentur Matth. 23. 34. & Luc. xi. 50. 51. Quid est enim, cur, exempli causa, non possint aliquomodo crudelia facinora Neronis ei, qui sit animo aeque crudeli & immani, imputari, quandoquidem quominus eadem perpetret per ejus voluntatem non stat, aeque videlicet crudelem?

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.