FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §100

Cap. IX: Garissoles (1–2) — illustration not foundation; ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν = ut breviter dicam?

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

Against this reply he sets many things. First: this place is put forward not as a foundation laid underneath, but as a testimony very apt for declaring and illustrating the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin. Whether it is apt for declaring immediate imputation will become plain partly from what stands above, partly from this and the following replies. What he adds — that the foundation of that doctrine from Romans 5 is false — is proved partly from what has already been said, partly from the Later Manuscript. That he says Augustine and Calvin embrace that imputation, I hold without hesitation for false. But let him go on. Second: "In vain," he says, "is refuge sought in the words ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν: for what if they ought to be rendered 'that I may speak briefly,' rather than 'so to speak'? For so that refuge will be strictly shut." It will be shut altogether — if he proves they must be so rendered here. But by what argument will he prove it? For now we only answer: it is his part to argue; and we answer in keeping with the received version, which cannot be overthrown. Who would also believe that the Apostle, who does not speak more briefly here than he does everywhere else, wished in this one place alone to use those words — "that I may speak briefly" — which he never uses elsewhere? For he always speaks briefly. But, he says, he adds ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν in order to say something greater and more marvelous. That escape of the disputant will be shut again. How, I ask, will it be shut, unless it is proved — and that is impossible — that it must be so rendered? And when the Apostles everywhere teach the greatest and most marvelous things, how would it have come about that such a preface was used in this one place only, rather than elsewhere? Is something greater and more marvelous said here than in other places of the chapter or of the Epistle? If it is a prior softening or correction, there is something in the following sentence to be softened or corrected, and it must not be pressed except with that softening or correction applied.

Latin

Huic responsioni multa reponit. 1. Locum hunc non tanquam fundamentum substerni, sed tanquam testimonium proponi declarandae & illustrandae doctrinae de imputatione peccati Adae valde appositum. An sit appositum declarandae imputationi immediatae partim ex superiori, partim ex hac & sequentibus responsionibus manifestum fiet. Quod subjungit fundamentum illius doctrinae ex Rom. V. quam sit falsum partim ex dictis, partim ex Manuscripto posteriore comprobatur. Quod ait Augustinum & Calvinum imputationem illam amplecti, me dubitatione pro falso habeo. Sed pergat. 2. Frustra, inquit, confugium quaeritur in verbis, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, quid enim si verti debeant, ut breviter dicam, potius quam, ut ita dicam? Sic enim stricte praecludetur illud confugium. Omnino praecludetur, si probet sic debere verti hoc loco. Sed quo argumento id evincet? Nos enim nunc tantum respondemus: ejus est argumentari: respondemus autem consentanea receptae versioni, quae refelli non potest. Quis etiam credat Apostolum, qui non brevius hoc loco quam alibi passim loquitur, voluisse hoc uno loco verba illa usurpare, ut breviter dicam, quibus alibi nunquam utitur? nempe perpetuo breviter loquitur. At, inquit, addit, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ut aliquid majus & mirabilius dicat. Praecludetur iterum haec disputatoris evasio. Quomodo inquam praecludetur, nisi probetur (id quod est impossibile) sic esse vertendum? Et cum maxima mirabilissimaque passim doceant Apostoli, qui factum esset, ut hoc uno duntaxat loco hujusmodi praefatio, potius quam alibi, usurparetur? Diciturne hic aliquid majus & mirabilius, quam aliis aut capitis aut Epistolae locis? Si praemollitio vel correctio est, aliquid est in sequenti sententia, vel emolliendum, vel corrigendum, nec, nisi adhibita emollitione vel correctione, urgendum.

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.