On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §293

Man. Post. Cap. VI: GAR Pelagian parallel; PLAC deny immediate-catholic tip

But we answer. I. Generally. If there ought to be room for such pinpoint interrogations, the doctrine of Original corruption can be no less speciously harassed by the followers of Pelagius or Socinus than this doctrine of imputation is vexed here. For it would be asked 1. Why Adam's moral corruption rather infected posterity than posterity's corruption stained Adam? 2. Why Adam's sin necessarily descended into posterity, and that of other fathers not so? 3. Why Adam's sin hurt Cain, and Cain's sin hurt Adam not at all? 4. Why the first sin rather corrupted us than Adam's following sins? 5. Why was Adam freed from that corruption... and all infants... not freed? 6. Why is Christ called our righteousness and sanctification, and Adam not called our sin and corruption? These and other things can be asked against the doctrine of inborn corruption, which if they do not hinder the learned man from having to acknowledge that corruption, neither ought those little questions to be an impediment to us from persevering in the ancient and Catholic faith of imputation. Faith of immediate imputation thus ancient and catholic? That has neither been proved thus far, nor can it be proved.

Latin

GAR. VII. Nos vero respondemus. I. Generaliter. Si ejusmodi interrogationum punctulis locus esse debeat, non minus speciose sollicitari posse doctrinam de corruptione Originali a Pelagii aut Socini sectatoribus, quam haec de imputatione doctrina hic vexatur. Quaeretur enim 1. Cur Adami corruptio moralis posteros potius infecit, quam corruptio posterorum inquinavit Adamum? 2. Cur Adami peccatum in posteros necessario descendit, caeterorum patrum non ita descendit? 3. Cur Adami peccatum Caino nocuit, Caini peccatum Adamo minime nocuit? 4. Cur primum peccatum nos potius corrupit, quam sequentia? 5. Cur Adamus ab illa corruptione liberatus est ... infantes omnes ... non liberantur? 6. Cur Christus justitia & sanctificatio nostra dicitur, Adamus non dicitur peccatum & corruptio nostra? Haec & alia adversus doctrinam de corruptione ingenita queri possunt, quae si non obstant quominus Viri docti corruptionem illam agnoscere debeant; neque debent quaestiunculae illae impedimento nobis esse, quominus in antiqua & Catholica imputationis fide perseveremus. PLAC. Itane antiqua & catholica est imputationis immediatae fides? Id neque probatum est hactenus, neque probari potest.

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.