FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §149

Cap. XII: Blancus — death in Adam multiplied; Rom 5:15 offense and justice

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

His added words—'inasmuch as in him they died'—confirm our view. When all are said to die in Adam, we do not mean Adam's single death imputed to everyone, but death multiplied by the number of men, each his own. He adds that they died by that one man's offense (Rom. 5:15), and from this thinks it easy to gather that the offense was everyone's by imputation, since divine justice will not let someone share another's punishment without sharing the guilt somehow. If someone likewise said we were produced by that one man's power, would that power therefore be common to all by imputation? If justice forbids sharing another's punishment without sharing guilt, it also forbids making someone a sharer of guilt by the judge's imputation who otherwise would not share it. If a judge already acts unjustly in punishing one who shares no guilt, how much worse if by his own act and judicial imputation he also makes that man a guilty sinner who otherwise was neither? I marvel that pious and learned men miss this. Who that is innocent could not be 'justly' punished, if imputation makes common a sin that was not common, and makes a true sinner of one who otherwise was not?

Latin

Quod etiam subiungit, quippe in quo mortui sunt, confirmat nostram sententiam: non enim cum in Adamo mori omnes dicuntur, mors ipsius Adami intelligitur, una numero, omnibus imputata; sed mors secundum hominum numerum multiplicata, ac sua cuique propria. Addit, & mortui unius illius hominis offensa Rom. 5. 15. unde, inquit, promptum est colligere, illam offensam fuisse omnium offensam, puta imputatione: repugnat enim justitiae divinae ut quis alienae poenae sit particeps, & non sit ullo modo particeps culpae. Si quis similiter diceret, nos fuisse productos unius illius hominis operatione vel virtute, num inde sequeretur, illam operationem vel virtutem fuisse omnium communem imputatione? Si repugnat justitiae divinae, ut quis alienae poenae sit particeps, & non sit ullo modo particeps culpae, certe eidem etiam justitiae repugnat, ut fiat particeps culpae judicis imputatione, is, qui alioqui non esset culpae particeps. Si judex facit injuste ei poenam irrogans, qui nullo modo est particeps culpae, quanto major erit injustitia, si non modo poenam irroget, sed eum faciat etiam sua actione & judiciaria imputatione participem culpae, atque adeo peccatorem & reum, alioqui non peccatorem nec reum? Miror hoc a viris piis & doctis non considerari. Quis enim innocens puniri juste non poterit, si facit imputatio commune esse peccatum quod alioqui non fuisset commune, & esse vere peccatorem & reum, qui alioqui peccator non fuisset?

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.