On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §395

Man. Post. Cap. VII: Exod 20:5 vs Deut/Ezek; Augustine/Zanchi tip before 2nd similitude

contend that the law laid down for all men, in which God testifies he vindicates fathers' sins upon sons, Exod. 20:5, is not to be reduced to the particular act God singularly prescribed to the Jews, Deut. 24:16, or to the particular economy by which he signifies he will deal in the Jews' cause, Ezek. 18:20. But of these places more fully later. El that Deut. 24:16 is called by the learned man a particular act, and that the oracle by which God vindicates his justice from the Jews' calumnies, Ezek. 18, is called a particular economy; and I marvel no less that to those two laws Exod. 20:5 is opposed, as if it hurt our cause. For that law was a universal rule of all judgments in which some crime was treated, and a particular economy could not—except with respect to a certain time—vindicate God's justice from the injustice objected; and Exod. 20, if it hints any imputation, hints only a mediate or consequent one, in no way clashing with the declaration of divine justice in Ezek. 18. Better therefore Augustine (Zanchi's words, expounding the second commandment of the Decalogue), Tom. 8 on Ps. 108, who interprets this Exodus place of those sons of the ungodly who imitate their parents' impiety, and so teaches that even eternal penalty is denounced to them here for iniquity that was so the parents' that it also became the sons' by imitation. And he proves it from God's adding "of those who hate me": that hatred refers both to fathers and to children. So Exodus does not clash with Ezekiel, where the Lord pronounces that a son simply innocent will not bear the father's iniquity—neither eternal nor temporal. For Exod. 20 speaks of children not simply innocent, but who imitate their fathers' iniquity. In these words we have the joined double authority of Augustine and Zanchi; above at p. 132 you have Jerome too, with whom all—or at least nearly all—interpreters agree, so that it is strange anyone could bring this law of God for immediate imputation.

Latin

GAR. … contendimus, [legem] quae omnibus hominibus lata est, in qua testatur Deus se vindicare peccata patrum in filios Exod. 20. 5. [non] ad particulare factum, quod Deus Judaeis singulariter praescripsit, Deut. 24. 16. aut ad particularem oeconomiam, qua se in causa Judaeorum usurum significat Ezech. 18. 20. Sed de his locis fusius postea dicendum erit. PLAC. Miror legem Deut. 24. 16. vocari a viro docto particulare factum, & oraculum, quo justitiam suam Deus vindicat a calumniis Judaeorum, Ezech. 18. particularem oeconomiam; nec minus miror iis duabus legibus opponi legem Exod. 20. 5. quasi haec causae nostrae obesset. Nam & lex illa erat universalis regula omnium judiciorum, in quibus de crimine aliquo agebatur, & particularis oeconomia non potuisset, nisi respectu cuiusdam temporis, justitiam Dei vindicare ab objecta injustitia, & lex Exod. 20. si quam imputationem innuit, innuit tantum mediatam seu consequentem, cum declaratione divinae justitiae Ezech. 18. minime pugnantem. Proinde melius Augustinus (verba sunt Zanchii exponentis secundum Decalogi praeceptum) Tom. 8. in Psal. 108. qui locum hunc Exodi interpretatur de illis impiorum filiis, qui parentum impietatem imitantur: ac proinde poenam etiam aeternam illis hoc loco denunciari docet, propter iniquitatem, quae ita parentum fuit, ut etiam facta sit propter imitationem filiorum. Atque inde hoc probat, quod addit Deus, eorum qui oderunt me: odium enim hoc refert tum ad patres tum ad liberos. Ita nihil pugnare locum Exodi cum loco Ezechielis ubi Dominus pronunciat, filium nempe simpliciter innocentem non portaturum iniquitatem patris, nimirum neque aeternam neque temporalem. Exod. enim 20. sermonem esse de liberis non simpliciter innocentibus, sed qui patrum iniquitatem imitentur. In his verbis habemus conjunctam duplicem autoritatem Augustini & Zanchii: Habes supra pag. 132. etiam Hieronymi; quibus consentiunt alii omnes, aut saltem prope omnes interpretes, ut mirum sit potuisse hanc Dei legem pro imputatione immediata a quoquam afferri.

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.