FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §95

Cap. IX: Fayus ἐφ᾽ ᾧ; habitual corruption; Orange — no help to antecedent imputation

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

Fayus certainly renders the words ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον "in whom all sinned," so that this, he says, is understood of Adam, whose sin was common to all, just as the penalty or death is common to all. But this is common to all not by imputation, only by propagation. The same, then, must be said of the sin. And so he expounds that "all sinned" of a sin not committed by act, but adhering in us by a certain habit. And again elsewhere: "But they sinned in Adam — yet not in the likeness of Adam the transgressor — because they did not sin on account of their own desires, which they had none of in themselves when they were little children or infants; therefore on account of another sin than Adam's." On which matter the Council of Orange reads thus: "He attributes injustice to God who says that death, which is the penalty of sin, passed to us without sin, which is the desert of death." So let all humans be said to have sinned in Adam, provided that is taken of habitual sin or corruption: what help is that to antecedent imputation? Or what need is there for us to answer such an illustration of original sin, which does us no harm at all?

Latin

Fayus certe verba ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον vertit in quo omnes peccaverunt, ut hoc, inquit, intelligatur de Adamo, cujus peccatum fuit commune omnium; sicut communis est omnium poena sive mors. Haec autem non imputatione communis est omnium, sed propagatione tantum. Idem ergo de peccato dicendum est. itaque illud omnes peccaverunt, exponit de peccato, quod non committitur actu, sed habitu quodam in nobis adhaeret. Et iterum alio loco. Peccaverunt autem in Adamo: sed non in similitudinem praevaricatoris Adami: quia non propter cupiditates suas peccarunt, quas in se nullas habebant, cum essent pueruli vel infantuli: ergo propter peccatum aliud a peccato Adae. qua de re in Arausicano concilio sic legitur, Injustitiam Deo dat qui mortem, quae est peccati poena, sine peccato, quod est meritum mortis, ad nos transiisse dicit. Dicantur ergo omnes homines peccasse in Adamo, modo id accipiatur de peccato habituali seu corruptione, quid hoc juvat imputationem antecedentem? Aut quid opus est ad talem illustrationem peccati originalis nobis nullo modo nocentem, nos respondere?

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.