On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §87

Cap. VIII: Disertius opposition; παρακοῆς names actual sin

Next, he says, the Apostle could scarcely have marked the imputation of Adam's sin more clearly or forcefully than these words do, with their sharp opposition between Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience. How then did the greatest men, expounding that verse, fail to notice that imputation in the Apostle's words — and rather reject it? But let him go on: it marks Christ's actual obedience, by which Christ became obedient to the Father unto the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8). Therefore it also marks Adam's actual disobedience, by which he violated God's command — so it is strange that the learned man denies that by the word παρακοῆς the Apostle designates Adam's actual sin. As for his addition that it does not designate actual sin cut off from the corruption that sin produced in Adam, I care little. To affirm, in Placeus's own words, that παρακοῆς signifies Adam's sin alone — not as actual cut off from habitual, but together with habitual — is that denying that the word designates Adam's actual sin?

Latin

Deinde, inquit, vix disertius & efficaciùs poterat Apostolus imputationem Adamici peccati significare, quam factum est his verbis, claram oppositionem continentibus inter Adami inobedientiam, & obedientiam Christi. Qui factum est igitur, ut maximi viri versum illum exponentes, imputationem illam in Apostoli verbis non animadverterint, sed rejecerint potius? verum pergat, Obedientiam Christi actualem significat, qua Christus factus est obediens Patri usque ad mortem crucis, Phil. 2.8. Ergo & obedientiam Adami actualem, qua Dei mandatum violavit: ut mirum sit qua ratione neget Vir doctus hic παρακοῆς voce ab Apostolo designari peccatum Adami actuale. Nam quod addit, non designari peccatum actuale praecisum à corruptione, quam in Adamo peperit, hoc parum moramur. Quid, affirmare voce παρακοῆς solum peccatum Adami significari, non quidem actuale praecisum ab habituali, sed simul cum habituali, quae sunt Placei verba, estne negare, ea voce designari peccatum Adami actuale?

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.