On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §181

Man. Post. Cap. II §XVI: Garissoles Distinguitur / Placeus — consensus on action alone

Garissoles (§XVI): Sin's imputation is divided into prior—or antecedent, or immediate—and posterior—or consequent, or mediate. Not a bad division; and I do not doubt that if only it were explained rightly, agreement here could easily be reached—namely if both imputations were referred to the same thing, that is, to Adam's sin in the same sense, or to the act by which Adam first made himself guilty of offending the Divine Majesty. Placeus: Why then is agreement not reached? Why am I attacked? I did refer both imputations to the same thing, and understood them only of the act by which Adam first sinned. That is clearer than noon, and I wonder it could be doubted. The distinction itself, to say nothing else, makes this plain: it cannot be taken of imputing habitual sin or corruption. Who would say corruption is imputed before corruption, or after it—through corruption as means, or without it?

Latin

GAR. Distinguitur imputatio peccati in Priorem, sive Antecedentem, aut Immediatam; & Posteriorem, sive Consequentem, aut Mediatam. Haud incommode sane; nec dubito, si modo recta explicatio adhiberetur, consensum hic facile stabiliri posse: si nempe utraque imputatio eodem referretur, id est, si intelligeretur de peccato Adami eadem significatione accepto, sive de actione, qua primum Adamus reum se fecit laesae Divinae Majestatis. PL. Cur ergo consensus non stabilitur? Cur oppugnor? utramque enim illam imputationem eodem retuli, ac nonnisi de illa actione qua primum Adamus peccavit, intellexi. Id sole meridiano clarius est, & miror vocari potuisse in dubium. Illa enim ipsa distinctio, ut alia omittam, hoc clarum facit: non potest enim de peccati habitualis seu corruptionis imputatione accipi. Quis enim dicat corruptionem ante corruptionem, aut post corruptionem; mediante corruptione, aut ea non mediante imputari?

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.