On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §29

Cap. VII §6: Garissoles contrary-causes — Placeus: opposite modes, not same

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

He seems in section 6 to bring forward some other argument, but in reality it is the same as the former, if you look to force and weight, so that there is no need of another reply. Yet let us see of what sort it is. But this too, he says, belongs to the aim of this place, that the causes of contrary effects are compared, namely that Adam and Christ, as causes of the same kind, produce their effects in their own. Therefore in whatever way Christ is the cause of justification, so Adam is the cause of condemnation. Namely Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification and reconciliation: Adam likewise the meritorious cause of our condemnation and rejection, etc. From this he gathers: He who by his sin merited guilt and punishment for us — his sin is imputed to us. Just as he who by his righteousness merits reconciliation and life for us — his righteousness is imputed. And yet Adam by his sin merited for us that we be guilty and liable to punishments. Therefore it cannot be doubted that his sin is imputed to us.

Let us weigh the particulars. I confess that Christ and Adam are causes of contrary effects in their own — he of justification, this one of condemnation; I deny that thence it follows that in whatever way Christ is the cause of justification, so Adam is the cause of condemnation, unless "in whatever way" be taken for "as truly." For rather the contrary, as I have already warned, follows from it. For causes of contrary effects do not act in the same mode, except perhaps generally, but rather in a contrary. For what heats does not act in the same special mode as what cools, but rather in an opposite; for that acts by heating, this by cooling. Christ was the cause of justification by obeying; Adam of condemnation by disobeying; he by eating of the forbidden fruit; this one by dying; he by paying what we owed as our surety, this one in a wholly other mode: for he was neither our surety, nor did or paid what we owed — he only did that which he was not bound to do.

Latin

Videtur §. 6. aliud quoddam argumentum afferre, sed revera idem est cum superiori, si vim et pondus spectes, ut nihil sit opus alia responsione. Id tamen quale sit videamus. Sed et illud, inquit, ad scopum huius loci pertinet, quod causae contrariorum effectuum comparantur, ut scilicet Adamus et Christus, tanquam causae eiusdem generis, producant effectus suos in suis. Itaque quomodo Christus est causa iustificationis, ita est Adamus causa condemnationis. Nempe Christus iustificationis et reconciliationis nostrae causa meritoria: Adamus itidem causa meritoria condemnationis et abdicationis nostrae etc. Hinc colligit: Qui peccato suo nobis reatum et poenam meruit, illius peccatum nobis imputatur. Sicut qui iustitia sua nobis reconciliationem meretur et vitam, illius iustitia imputatur. Atqui Adamus peccato suo nobis meruit, ut rei simus et poenis obnoxii. Itaque dubitari non potest, quin illius peccatum nobis imputetur. Singula expendamus. Fateor Christum et Adamum esse causas contrariorum effectuum in suis, illum iustificationis, hunc condemnationis; nego inde sequi, Quomodo Christus est causa iustificationis, ita esse Adamum causam condemnationis, nisi quomodo accipiatur pro quam vere. Contrarium enim potius, ut iam monui, inde sequitur. Causae enim contrariorum effectuum non agunt eodem modo, nisi forte generali, sed potius contrario. Non enim quod calefacit, eodem modo speciali agit ac quod frigefacit, sed opposito potius; illud enim agit calefaciendo, hoc frigefaciendo. Christus fuit causa iustificationis obediendo; Adamus condemnationis inobediendo; Ille edendo de fructu vetito; hic moriendo; Ille solvendo quod debebamus ut vas noster, hic alio plane modo: nam nec vas noster erat, nec fecit aut solvit quod debebamus, tantum fecit id quod non facere tenebatur.

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.