On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §281

Man. Post. Cap. VI: infection/reatus; prefer corruption tip before Isaiah

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

For the rest, you shore up this answer of yours with questions. For, you say, who can otherwise give the reason of this infection and guilt? Why, I ask, did Adam by sinning destroy and subject to death not only a person but also the whole human nature—whereas other men by their actual sins wound persons and make themselves liable to death? How can an actual sin be justly imputed to us which we ourselves neither did, nor ordered, nor advised, nor approved by any consent of our will, and which with respect to us was in no way voluntary? Can you give the reason of these things? Would it not then be better firmly to believe the propagation of inherent corruption and of the guilt which follows it—Scripture teaching, experience bearing witness—and to leave to God the mode which you do not grasp, than beside and against Scripture to invent an imputation equally, or more, hard to grasp, and one that perverts and stains the justice of God?

Latin

Caeterum hanc tuam responsionem interrogationibus firmas. Nam, inquis, qui potest aliter reddi ratio hujus infectionis & reatus? cur quaeso Adam peccando perdidit, & morti subjecit, non tantum personam, sed etiam totam naturam humanam? Cum caeteri homines peccatis suis actualibus laedant personas, & se mortis reos efficiant. Qui potest nobis peccatum actuale juste imputari, quod neque fecimus ipsi, neque jussimus, neque suasimus, neque ullo voluntatis nostrae consensu probavimus, quodque nostro respectu nullo modo voluntarium fuit? Horumne tu rationem reddere potes? Annon igitur satius esset propagationem corruptionis inhaerentis & reatus qui eam sequitur, docente Scriptura, contestante experientia, firmiter credere; modum autem quem non capis Deo permittere, quam praeter & contra Scripturam imputationem excogitare aeque, aut magis difficilem captu, ac Dei justitiam pervertentem, & maculantem?

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.