On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §230

Man. Post. Cap. IV: PLAC — passiva Deo? originale; before GAR 2

Second: if the man has already stripped himself of righteousness, is that not enough for him to be without it? Why must God strip him again afterward? The divine stripping would have to come later than the self-stripping, if the latter is the law-breach and the former its following penalty. Third I ask what sort of privation original righteousness is, in Adam and in us. If active, I win: it is law-breaking, not a legally announced penalty. If only passive, it is neither law-breaking nor sin but bare penalty—and that denies original sin. Fourth: does any Scripture say God stripped Adam of righteousness? How then dare the learned man assert it? Reverence for God will not let my conscience bear that claim. Whoever strips a man of righteousness makes him unjust and causes his injustice—an idea I may not even entertain of God. But now he offers a second reply that retracts what he just gave; let us hear it.

Latin

Deinde si se homo ipse privat justitia, nonne hoc satis est ut sit justitia privatus? Quid opus est, ut postquam sese ipse privavit justitia, Deus eum privet justitia? oportet enim hanc privationem illa posteriorem esse, siquidem illa est violatio legis, haec illam violationem consequens poena. Praeterea, quaero, privatio justitiae originalis quatenus fuit in Adamo, aut est in nobis omnibus, qualis sit privatio? si est activa, habeo quod volo, est violatio legis, non autem poena lege denunciata. Si est passiva, non est violatio legis, non est peccatum, sed poena tantum. Id quod est negare peccatum originale. Denique, Docet-ne alicubi Scriptura Deum privasse Adamum justitia? Quomodo ergo ausus est Vir Doctus id asserere? Certe, qua ducor erga Deum reverentia, ferre non potest mea conscientia illam assertionem. Nam qui privat hominem justitia, facit eum injustum ejusque injustitiae causa est. Id quod vel suspicari de Deo mihi nefas esse videtur. Sed secundam affert Vir Doctus responsionem, qua tollit id quod dedit: eam audiamus.

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.