On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §40

Cap. VII: Adam–Christ opposition from ἐφ᾽ ᾧ — modes not the same

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

Namely, he says, the Apostle opposes these two: in Adam all sinned, in Christ all are justified. Is it so, I ask, by those words "in that all sinned" (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) (Romans 5:12)? But let him go on. Whether you look at the opposition or at the words by which the opposition is explained, you have imputation rising from it. From the opposition. For as men are justified in Christ, so they are understood to have sinned in Adam. And yet in Christ they are justified by the imputation of his righteousness. Therefore they are also to be understood to have sinned in Adam by the imputation of Adam's sin. First I deny that such an opposition is made in those words. That was not to be supposed, but to be proved. Next, as I have already often impressed (for this argument differs in nothing from the former ones), the proposition is not universally true, and the likeness is rather in the truth of the thing than in the mode. Namely, men are as truly justified in Christ as they truly sinned in Adam; but they are not justified in exactly the same mode in which they sinned: for the thing itself could not bear that; but in a diverse mode. For I will subsume: And yet men are justified in Christ by each one's own faith. Therefore they are also to be understood to have sinned in Adam by each one's own faith — not to say, or by unbelief? Is this minor proposition not true, confirmed by the votes of the Apostle and of all Christians? Either therefore the major is false, or a conclusion must be admitted that is not obscurely opposed to D. Garissoles's conclusion. Which of these do you choose, pious reader?

Latin

Nimirum, inquit, opponit haec duo Apostolus, in Adamo omnes peccaverunt, in Christo omnes justificantur. Itane, inquam, illis verbis ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον? Sed pergat. Sive oppositionem sive verba spectes, quibus oppositio explicatur, imputationem habes ex eo consurgentem. Ex oppositione. Nam ut in Christo justificantur homines, ita in Adamo peccasse intelliguntur. Atqui in Christo justificantur per imputationem justitiae illius. Ergo et in Adamo peccasse intelligendi sunt, per imputationem peccati Adae. Primum nego in illis verbis ejusmodi oppositionem fieri. Id erat non supponendum, sed probandum. Deinde, ut jam aliquoties inculcavi, (nihil enim differt hoc argumentum a superioribus) universaliter vera non est propositio, et similitudo potius est in veritate rei, quam in modo. Nimirum tam vere in Christo justificantur homines, quam vere peccaverunt in Adamo; Sed non justificantur eodem prorsus modo quo peccaverunt: id enim res ipsa pati non poterat; sed diverso. Subsumam enim, Atqui in Christo justificantur homines per suam quisque fidem. Ergo et in Adamo peccasse intelligendi sunt per suam quisque fidem ne dicam, an incredulitatem? Nonne haec minor propositio vera est, Apostoli et omnium Christianorum calculis confirmata? Aut igitur major falsa est, aut admittenda est conclusio conclusioni D. Gar. non obscure opposita. Quid horum pie lector eligis?

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.