On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §389

Man. Post. Cap. VII: GAR magistrate judgments; PLAC tip — prove justice from Scripture

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

GAR. But for those about to answer, that ought first of all to have been clearly explained—whether they think in such magistrates' judgments anything unjust or cruel is designated which ought to have been done otherwise, and on account of which they can be struck with just accusation in the forum of conscience. For if those Judges' sentences are just, there is no doubt they have their approval with God, who cannot but approve what is just and good when it is done. But what is just and good and holy among men who think rightly—why is it traduced as absurd and monstrous and full of injustice when it is said to be done by God? PLAC. Either my reply is good, or bad. If good, why did the learned man not admit it? If bad, he ought to have shown its fault, not prescribe me another way of answering. Then that very way of answering which he demands can be turned back on him: for either such judges' sentences are just, or unjust. If just, he ought to have demonstrated their justice, either by some testimony of Scripture, or by a necessary and evident reason, whence it would be clear that God delights in like sentences.

Latin

GAR. Atqui responsuris illud ante omnia clare fuerat explicandum, putentne in eiusmodi magistratuum judiciis aliquid injustum aut crudele designari, quod secus fieri oportuerit, & cuius nomine in foro conscientiae justa possint accusatione percelli. Nam si justa sunt ea Judicum sententiae, non dubium est quin suam apud Deum approbationem habeant, qui quae justa sunt & bona non potest non approbare cum fiunt. Quae vero justa & bona & sancta sunt, apud homines recte sentientes, cur tanquam absurda, & immania, & injustitia plena traducantur, cum a Deo fieri dicuntur? PLAC. Aut bona est mea responsio, aut mala. Si bona, cur eam non admisit Vir doctus? Si mala, debuit eius vitium ostendere, non aliam mihi respondendi rationem praescribere. Deinde illa ipsa respondendi ratio quam exigit potest in eum retorqueri: nam vel justae sunt eiusmodi judicum sententiae, vel injustae. Si justae, demonstrare debuit earum justitiam, vel Scripturae aliquo testimonio, vel necessaria & evidenti ratione, unde constet similibus Deum delectari sententiis.

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.