On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §667

Man. Post. Cap. X: GAR.2 — same duration logic would also bar imputing Christ’s actual obedience

he argument which is here used against the imputation of Adam’s sin, someone could use no less against the imputation of Christ’s actual obedience.

For if it is rightly gathered that Adam’s disobedience was not imputed until the law, because it did not endure until the law: why may it not also be legitimately gathered that Christ’s actual obedience, by which he showed himself obedient unto death, can in no way be imputed to us, because it did not last until our times?

Latin

GAR. 2. Argumento quod hic usurpatur adversus imputationem peccati Adae, non minus uti poterit aliquis adversus imputationem actualis obedientiae Christi. Nam si recte colligitur inobedientiam Adami non fuisse imputatam usque ad legem, quia non perduravit usque ad legem: quidni etiam legitime colligatur, actualem Christi obedientiam, qua se obedientem praestitit usque ad mortem, nobis nequaquam imputari posse, quia non duravit usque ad nostra tempora?

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.