Via Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §192

Man. Post. Cap. II §XIX: Placeus — mediate looks to actual sin; reductio on Adam-habitus imputation; before Deinde habitus

Placeus: First, I never said Adam's sin is imputed inasmuch as our corruption is a habit left in his soul. My point was only this: hereditary corruption is that habit the first sin left there, plus a bent toward such sin, and so habitual consent to it—and I see no reason we may not say the first sin is imputed to us, namely the sin that left what we call hereditary corruption in Adam's soul. That can only be Adam's first actual sin; nothing else planted that depravity in him. So, Reader: the imputation I name mediate I refer to Adam's actual sin, and I explain why hereditary corruption lets us say it is imputed to us. But if the learned man proves the corruption as it stood in Adam's soul is imputed to us, watch what follows. First, that corruption becomes ours as an actual sin by imputation—his own view requires it. Does he then want Adam's posterity corrupt 'interpretatively' or 'imputatively'? Next: is the corruption as it inheres in us also imputed to us? Deny it, and it is not truly sin and does not make us guilty. Affirm it, and corruption is charged twice—once as it was in Adam, again as it is in us—so we are guiltier than Adam. Who believes that? Last: is Adam-stuck corruption imputed to us immediately, or through corruption as a means? If through a means, why not say the same of the actual sin? If immediately, then our corruption is the punishment of Adam's—for why should an imputed habitual not draw punishment as an imputed actual does? If so, Adam's habitual sin is punished harder in us than it was in him: in us, on his showing, by inflicted corruption, whereas that was not how Adam's own corruption was punished in Adam. Finally, if Adam's-as-was corruption is imputed to us, it comes with his actual sin, or before it, or after. Before or after has no cause. If together with us, it was together with Adam too—else why would those two sins not equally have hit him and us at once? If they hit Adam together, his corruption was not the punishment of the actual: it would be earlier than itself, since imputation precedes punishment, and it would be charged to him before it existed in him. That is open contradiction. But let him go on.

Latin

PLAC. Primum non dixi, imputari peccatum Adae, quatenus corruptio nostra est habitus in Adami anima relictus. Tantum dixi, quia corruptio haereditaria est habitus quem primum peccatum in Adami anima reliquit, & perversa propensio ad ejusmodi peccatum, atque adeo consensus habitualis ad illud peccatum, causam me non videre, cur non possit dici nobis imputari, nimirum primum illud peccatum, quod corruptionem, quae haereditaria vocatur, in Adami anima reliquit. Id autem aliud esse non potest quam primum illud Adae peccatum actuale. Aliud enim nullum illam deprauationem in Adami anima reliquit. Vides Lector, me imputationem illam, quam mediatam appello, referre ad peccatum Adae actuale, ac rationem reddere, cur ob haereditariam illam corruptionem dici possit nobis imputari. Sed quandoquidem Vir Doctus probat corruptionem, quatenus in Adami anima fuit, nobis imputari, vide quaeso quid consequatur. Primum illa nostra erit, ut peccatum actuale, per imputationem; hoc enim est illius sententiae consentaneum. Vultne igitur posteros Adami corruptos esse, ut loquitur, interpretative, seu imputative? Deinde, peto an corruptio, quatenus nobis inhaeret, nobis imputetur, necne? Si negas; igitur non est vere peccatum, non peragit nos reos. Si ais; igitur bis corruptio nobis imputatur, semel quatenus fuit in Adamo, iterum quatenus est in nobis. Ita magis rei sumus quam Adamus. Quis hoc credat? Denique peto an corruptio, quatenus haesit in Adamo, imputetur nobis immediate, an mediante corruptione? Si hoc, cur idem non dicitur de peccato actuali? Si illud, Ergo illius corruptionis Adae, nostra corruptio poena est: Cur enim non aeque imputati habitualis poena sit, ac imputati actualis? Si ergo illius imputati poena est, magis punitur in nobis peccatum habituale Adami, quam in ipso Adamo punitum est. In nobis enim, si viro Docto fides habetur, punitur inflictione corruptionis, cum ea poena non fuerit corruptio Adami in Adamo punita. Postremo, Si nobis imputatur corruptio ut fuit in Adamo, vel nobis imputatur simul cum eius peccato actuali, vel ante, aut post illud peccatum. Cur ante aut post illud imputetur, causa dici non potest. Si nobis simul imputatur, etiam simul cum actuali imputata fuit Adamo, cur non enim aeque simul illi ac nobis duo illa eius peccata imputata fuissent? Si ergo simul imputata fuerunt ipsi Adamo, eius corruptio non fuit poena peccati actualis: fuisset enim semetipsa prior: antecedit enim imputatio poenam; & prius imputata fuisset Adamo, quam in eo fuisset. Id quod non obscure contradictionem implicat. Sed pergat.

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. No modern English was copied. Cap. IX deepen+ remain.

Catalogue & scope

IA deimputationepri00lapl.: Capita I–XII + Caput XIV + Man. Post. Cap. II–VI through Cap. X Rom. 5:14. 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.