Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §108

Cap. X: Martyr vs Pighius; Minor petitio; deny imputed, concede propagated privation

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

But, he says, against this sentence that chiefly tells which we have already said twice: namely, that infants die. For death has no right where there is no sin — unless we would say that God punishes an innocent person. And this reason is confirmed from Paul's argument by which he proved that sin was before the Law: Because death, he says, reigned from Adam until Moses. Yet on Pighius's sentence this reason might seem dullest of all. For someone would say that even if those people died, it still does not follow from that that they had sin. For death came upon them because of Adam, on account of whose sin they were made mortal. You see, reader, that the sin understood is not Adam's actual sin, as D. Garissoles wants, but our habitual sin; and that his arguments fight for Pighius's cause against ours. To make that plainer, I will add another argument of Martyr's. Finally, he says, we have from Paul that by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners: which indicates that in those who are born of Adam there is a vice because of which they can be called sinners. But Pighius thinks he can evade this, because sinners are sometimes so called because of guilt, even though the act of sinning has passed and no longer exists. Though that is so, he can never show from the Scriptures that anyone is called a sinner unless he either has a vice in himself or has certainly committed one before — unless he would say that God makes people guilty without any sin of theirs. Can your fairness, reader, ask anything more plainly? But let us return to the argument objected against us. Although the conclusion does not hinder our cause, still the minor must be distinguished. For if he wants us deprived of natural justice because of Adam's first disobedience imputed to us, that is begging the question, as they say: for it assumes the very point under dispute; and so the minor is denied. But if he wants us deprived of justice because of that disobedience naturally propagated into us (not indeed according to the act, but according to the habit), that can be granted. For actual disobedience stripped Adam of justice, and once he had lost it he could not communicate it to his posterity: for no one gives what he does not have. We therefore deny that we are deprived of natural justice because of Adam's sin imputed to us; we concede that we are deprived of it because of Adam's sin propagated into us.

Latin

Verum, inquit, contra hanc sententiam in primis illud facit, quod jam bis diximus: videlicet, infantes mori. Mors enim nihil juris habet ubi non est peccatum. Nisi dicere velimus Deum punire innocentem. Confirmatur autem haec ratio ex argumento Pauli, quo probavit, peccatum fuisse ante Legem. Quia mors, inquit, regnavit ab Adamo usque ad Mosen. Atqui juxta Pighii sententiam haec ratio hebetissima videri possit. Diceret enim quispiam, etsi illi mortui fuerint, tamen ex eo non sequitur, illos habuisse peccatum. Mors enim illis contigit propter Adamum, ob cujus peccatum redditi sint mortales. Vides, Lector, & peccatum intelligi, non actuale Adami, ut vult D. Garissolius, sed habituale nostrum; & pro causa Pighii ejus argumenta militare adversus nostros. Quod ut fiat manifestius, subjungam aliud argumentum Martyris. Postremo, inquit, habemus a Paulo per inobedientiam unius hominis multos constitutos esse peccatores: quod indicat, in illis, qui nascuntur ex Adamo, esse vitium, propter quod peccatores dici possint. Sed hoc putat Pighius se posse eludere, quod peccatores interdum dicantur propter reatum, quamvis actio peccandi praeterierit, neque amplius extet. Quamvis hoc ita sit, nunquam tamen ostendere potest e Scripturis, quenquam peccatorem appellari, quin aut in seipso vitium habeat, aut certe antea admiserit: nisi dicere velit, Deum homines reos facere absque ipsorum aliquo peccato. Num quid flagitare disertius tua potest, Lector, aequitas? Sed redeamus ad Argumentum nobis objectum. Quamvis causae nostrae non obsit conclusio, tamen Minor distingui debet. Nam si vult nos privari justitia naturali propter primam Adae inobedientiam nobis imputatam, petitio est, ut loquuntur, principii: id ipsum enim assumit quod versatur in quaestione: quare negatur minor. Sin vult nos privari justitia propter inobedientiam illam in nos, (non quidem secundum actum, sed secundum habitum) naturaliter propagatam, concedi potest. Nam inobedientia actualis Adamum justitia privavit, quam amissam cum posteris communicare non potuit: Nemo enim dat quod non habet. Negamus igitur nos privari justitia naturali ob peccatum Adami nobis imputatum: Concedimus nos ea privari ob peccatum Adami in nos propagatum.

About this text

Josue de la Place (Placeus) — Capita I–XIV partial of De imputatione primi peccati Adami from the 1661 Saumur Latin, through Man. Post. Caput X (GAR.1–3 Rom. 5.13 tip) / before PLAC on reatus-only. Honest partial; Cap. X Rom. 5:14+ / ~494 pp Disputatio remain.

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.