On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §24

Cap. VII: Rivetus completed — Quid pro ista; Garissoles Arg. I; Placeus Resp. 1

Therefore the Apostle does not compare the modes by which righteousness is received, but the causes, effects, and subjects of each. The cause of salvation is the obedience of the second Adam, as the cause of condemnation was the disobedience of the first. The effects are that the one constitutes us unjust, the other just. The subjects are many, made just through the one, unjust through the other. Therefore the Bishop of Deux-Ponts, explaining these words of the same chapter, But not as the offense, so also the gift, concludes from the preceding likeness alone: The likeness, then, is as to the thing between these, but not as to the mode. Which being so, the adversaries' argument limps, because they do not argue well from the thing to the mode of the thing. In the French edition, section 8, these last words are set out more fully: That being so, the adversaries' argument is worth nothing; because they conclude therein that we are justified in Christ in the same fashion that we are made sinners in Adam, which the Apostle does not say.

What could have been said more clearly for this our reply, and against the arguments of D. Garissoles? Yet let us weigh them briefly. I will not report all his words: for they are too prolix; but only those in which the nerve and force of the argument consists.

Arg. I. The Apostle has this proposed to himself in the latter part of chapter 5, which extends from verse 12 to the end, that what he taught concerning justification he may confirm by exposition of a noble type. But he taught in chapter 4 that the reason of our justification consists in this, that through the imputation of Christ's righteousness received by faith we are justified, that is, are held just and are absolved before God, etc. Therefore the Apostle wants to conclude from that comparison of Christ with Adam that justification befalls us from the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And yet this could be concluded by no legitimate reason unless the imputation of Adam's sin were posited, etc. For what is the force or reason of a consequence of that kind? Sin is propagated naturally from Adam into us, without any imputation. Therefore the righteousness of the second Adam, who is Christ, descends to us not by propagation but by imputation.

Reply 1. That first Major proposition — The Apostle confirms by exposition of a noble type what he taught concerning justification in chapter 4 — is taken either universally or particularly; that is, that the Apostle confirms either all things which he taught, or some. If the former, the proposition is false. For he had taught that faith is imputed unto righteousness, that a man is not justified from the works of the law, that the promise is not through the law, what faith that is through which we are justified, etc. Which things, however, he does not properly confirm by arguments drawn from that type: inasmuch as of them he does not even make mention in that comparison. If the latter, the argument is vicious and has no force of concluding: for it is in the first figure of syllogisms. And if it be conceived in the third figure with a universal minor joined, that minor will without doubt be openly false.

Latin

Itaque non comparat Apostolus modos quibus iustitia recipitur, sed causas, effectus et subiecta utriusque. Causa salutis est obedientia secundi Adami, ut causa condemnationis fuit inobedientia primi. Effecta sunt quod una nos iniustos constituit, altera iustos. Subiecta sunt multi, per unum iusti, per alium iniusti redditi. Ideo Episcopus Bipontinus eiusdem cap. haec verba explicans, Sed non sicut delictum, ita et donum, Ex sola praecedenti similitudine concludit, Similitudo igitur est quoad rem inter haec, sed non quoad modum. Quocum ita sit, adversariorum claudicat argumentum, quia a re ad modum rei non bene argumentantur. In edit. Gall. §. 8. haec ultima verba efferuntur plenius: Cela estant, l'argument des Adversaires ne vaut rien; pource qu'ils concluent en iceluy, que nous sommes iustifiez en Christ de mesme facon que nous sommes rendus pecheurs en Adam, ce que l'Apostre ne dit pas. Quid pro ista nostra responsione, et contra argumenta D. Gar. dici potuit disertius? Ea tamen expendamus breviter. Non referam omnia eius verba: sunt enim nimis prolixa; sed ea tantum, in quibus nervus et vis argumenti consistit. Arg. I. Apostolus id sibi propositum habet posteriori capitis 5. parte, quae a vers. 12. usque ad finem pertingit, ut, quae de iustificatione docuit, ea nobilis typi expositione confirmet. Docuit autem cap. 4. iustificationis nostrae rationem in eo consistere, quod per imputationem iustitiae Christi fide perceptae, iustificemur, id est, iusti habeamur et absolvamur apud Deum etc. Itaque hoc vult Apostolus ex ista Christi cum Adamo collatione concludere, iustificationem nobis obtingere ex imputatione iustitiae Christi. Atqui hoc nulla legitima ratione concludi posset, nisi poneretur imputatio peccati Adae etc. Quae enim est eiusmodi consequentiae vis aut ratio? Peccatum naturaliter ex Adamo in nos propagatur, sine omni imputatione. Ergo iustitia secundi Adami, qui Christus est, non propagatione, sed imputatione ad nos descendit. Resp. 1. Primam illam Maiorem propositionem, Apostolus quae de iustificatione cap. 4. docuit, ea nobilis typi expositione confirmat, vel universaliter accipi, vel particulariter; hoc est, Apostolum vel omnia quae docuit confirmare, vel quaedam. Si prius, falsa est propositio. Docuerat enim, fidem imputari ad iustitiam, non iustificari hominem ex operibus legis, promissionem non esse per legem, quanam sit fides per quam iustificamur etc. Quae tamen proprie non confirmat ductis ab isto typo argumentis: quippe quorum in illa comparatione ne meminit quidem. Si posterius, vitiosum est argumentum, nec ullam concludendi vim habet: est enim in prima syllogismorum figura. Quod si concipiatur in tertia figura subiuncta minore universali; ea minor sine dubio falsa erit aperte.

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.