On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §35

Cap. VII: From the Apostle's aim to his words — same ratio of opposites?

The former arguments were drawn from the aim of the Apostle; those follow which are drawn from his words. Omitting, for the sake of brevityevityevity, the explanation of verse 12, let us see what he concludes from them. Certainly, he says, of opposites there is the same ratio, and from understanding of the one one easily arrives at knowledge of the other. If we know what the righteousness brought through Christ is, we shall understand also what the sin introduced through Adam is. And yet the righteousness introduced through Christ is twofold, imputed and inhering, yet so that from the reason of the matter and argument which is disputed by Paul, the imputed here properly comes to be understood, since justification is being treated, but the inhering only from the consequence of things, inasmuch as no one is gifted with imputed righteousness to whom God does not also bestow the inhering. Therefore likewise the sin introduced through Adam is indeed twofold, imputed and inhering in us, yet so that from the reason of the business which is here treated the imputed is properly understood; but the inhering only from what follows, because of the tightest and indissoluble conjunction of imputation and original corruption. Let us weigh these things. Certainly, he says, of opposites there is the same ratio: of all, I ask, and of every, or of some only and certain ones? If this, the argumentation is faulty; if that, the proposition is false. Avarice and prodigality are opposed — is the ratio of each throughout the same? If it is the same, is the ratio of liberality, which is opposed to both, also throughout the same?

Latin

Superiora argumenta ducta fuerunt a σκοπῷ Apostoli, sequuntur ea, quae ducuntur ex eius verbis. Missa brevitatis studio vers. 12. explicatione, quid inde concludat videamus. Certe, inquit, oppositorum eadem est ratio, et ex unius intelligentia in alterius cognitionem facile devenitur. Si norimus quid sit iustitia per Christum allata, intelligemus et quid sit peccatum per Adamum introductum. Atqui iustitia per Christum introducta duplex est, imputata et inhaerens, ita tamen, ut ex ratione materiae et argumenti, quod disceptatur a Paulo, imputata hic proprie intelligenda veniat, cum de iustificatione agatur, inhaerens autem, nonnisi ex consequentia rerum, quatenus scilicet nullus imputata iustitia donatur, cui non Deus etiam inhaerentem largiatur. Ergo similiter, peccatum per Adamum introductum, est illud quidem duplex, imputatum et inhaerens in nobis, ita tamen ut ex ratione negotii, quod hic agitur, imputatum proprie intelligatur; inhaerens autem nonnisi ex consequenti, propter arctissimam et indissolubilem coniunctionem imputationis et corruptionis originalis. Haec expendamus. Certe, inquit, oppositorum eadem est ratio: omniumne, inquam, et omnis, an quorundam tantum et quaedam? Si hoc, vitiosa est argumentatio; Si illud, falsa est propositio. Opponuntur avaritia et prodigalitas, est-ne eadem prorsus utriusque ratio? Si est eadem, est-ne etiam eadem prorsus liberalitatis, quae utrique opponitur?

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.