Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §144

Cap. XII: Which covenant? Mosaic, Abraham, nature — no antecedent immediate before v.19

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

As for the covenant — which kind does he mean? Of grace? Legal? I think not. Of nature? Let him tell me what that is supposed to be. I see a double law laid on Adam: one through signs that signify by nature, one through signs that signify by institution — the first planted in nature, the second revealed by the word. Under the first Adam stood as man and world-dweller; under the second, as paradise-dweller. Which was 'that covenant'? Not the second, I think. It was framed in these words: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die. That law does not wear a covenant's face, and it was laid on Adam when, for want of a wife still to be created supernaturally, he could not be a father. You will say it was laid on the whole human race. It was laid on the whole race that then existed — not on a race that did not yet exist and never dwelt in paradise. Grant it was laid on the whole race: must its first actual breach by one man be imputed to all his posterity who did not break it? Was not the Mosaic law laid on all Israel? Yet its first breach is not imputed to all the posterity of those who first received it. Was not a covenant struck with Abraham for himself and his seed? Are one or more of Abraham's acts therefore imputed to all his posterity? Is there anything in that law from which such an imputation can be drawn? So that law is not a covenant that imports such an imputation. Nor is the law or covenant commonly called nature such a covenant. All men are born under it; but nothing in it yields an antecedent or immediate imputation of Adam's first actual sin. Its threats belong to all men no more than its commands; and Adam's posterity are each as bound to keep it for themselves as Adam once was. But perhaps I linger too long refuting bare assertions and, as they say, beggings of the question.

Latin

Ad foedus quod spectat, qualenam intelligit? Gratiae? Legale? Non arbitror. Naturae? Id quale intelligitur velim mihi exponi. Video enim duplicem latam fuisse Adamo legem: Unam per signa naturaliter significantia, Alteram per signa ex instituto significantia; illam naturae insitam, hanc verbo revelatam. Sub illa fuit Adamus, quatenus homo ac mundi incola; sub hac vero, quatenus incola paradisi. Utra foedus illud fuit? Non ista, ut opinor. His enim verbis concepta fuit, De omni arbore horti comedendo comedes. De arbore vero scientiae boni & mali non comedes ex ea: Nam quocunque die comederis ex ea moriendo morieris. Quae lex nec foederis prae se fert naturam, & tunc lata est Adamo, cum defectu uxoris (quae supernaturaliter creanda erat) pater esse non posset. Dices illam legem toti generi humano latam fuisse. Omnino lata fuit toti generi humano quod tunc extabat: at non ei, quod neque erat, neque paradisi unquam incola fuit. Fuerit tamen lata toti generi humano, num illius prima violatio actualis profecta ab uno homine, omnibus illius hominis posteris, a quibus violata non est, imputari debuit? Nonne lex Mosaica toti populo Israelitico lata fuit? Et tamen prima illius legis violatio non est omnibus posteris eorum, quibus primum lata est, imputata. Nonne foedus divinitus cum Abrahamo percussum fuit? Idque pro se & semine suo Abrahamus accepit? Numergo Abrahami actio vel una, vel plures, omnibus eius posteris imputatur? Estne quicquam in illa lege, unde eiusmodi imputatio elici possit? Non est ergo lex illa tale foedus, quod talem imputationem importet. Sed neque etiam huiusmodi foedus est lex seu foedus quod vulgo natura appellatur. Sub ea quidem nascuntur omnes homines: Sed in ea nihil potest deprehendi, unde primi Adae peccati actualis antecedens seu immediata imputatio colligi possit. Non magis enim pertinent ad omnes homines eius comminationes quam mandata: Nec minus tenentur posteri Adami pro se quisque eam observare, quam tenebatur olim Adamus. Sed fortasse diutius, quam par est, in nudis assertionibus, ac, ut loquuntur, principii petitionibus refellendis immoror.

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.