Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §150

Cap. XII: Blancus on ἁμαρτίαν — habit not bare past act; three rationes

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

At last the learned man says the Pauline word ἁμαρτίαν does not mean the habit of sin—the habitual corruption even in infants—but a past act of sinning, which can mean nothing but Adam's first sin. That contradicts Calvin and the other great men we follow, who take 'they sinned' of original vice. Still he offers reasons. I. Paul speaks of the sin that entered the world, that is all men, through Adam, called one man. So he assumes original vice is either not sin, or did not enter all naturally begotten through that one man. II. Infants too are wrapped in this sin: they count among those into whom death passed, and they die by no other actual sin than an imputed one, since no other actual sin befalls them; and that imputed actual sin is nothing but Adam's first. Yes, infants die by no other actual sin than Adam's first—but why not die proximately by that habitual vice which makes every human being liable to eternal death before God? As I have often said: you cannot build immediate imputation of Adam's first actual sin without denying the guilt of habitual vice. III. When Paul says in verse 17 that death reigned through one offense, and in verse 19 that many were made sinners by one man's disobedience, those phrases can look only to Adam's own deed—the breach of God's command. Grant it—what then? Does it follow that ἁμαρτίαν does not mean the habit of sin, or that Adam's first actual sin is imputed to us immediately, before we are born corrupt? Death reigns through one offense so far as it is propagated by habit into all, so that death reigns in all because sin reigns. By one man's disobedience propagated and multiplied by habit, many are constituted sinners. Why hunt elsewhere for the proximate cause of our death, when that inhering sin shows itself in our body and members—and unless Christ's grace crucifies it, reigns so mightily in us?

Latin

Tandem, ait vir doctus, vox illa ἁμαρτίαν in loco Paulino non significat habitum peccati, seu habitualem corruptionem, quae ipsis etiam infantibus inest, sed actum peccandi, eumque praeteritum, quo non potest intelligi aliud praeter primum Adami peccatum. Hoc vero est Calvino & aliis viris maximis, quos sequimur, contradicere, illud peccaverunt de vitio originali exponentibus. Affert tamen rationes. Quia I. inquit, loquitur Paulus de peccato quod introiit in mundum. i. in omnes homines, per Adamum, quem vocat unum hominem. Supponit vitium originale, aut non esse peccatum, aut non introiisse in omnes homines per unum illum hominem naturaliter procreatos. II. quia, hoc peccato involvuntur etiam infantes: sunt enim in censu hominum, & ex eorum numero, in quos mors transiit, nec moriuntur propter aliud peccatum actuale quam imputatum, quia aliud actuale in eos non cadit: actuale autem imputatum non est aliud praeter primum Adami peccatum. Non moriuntur quidem infantes propter aliud peccatum actuale quam primum illud Adami: sed cur non moriuntur proxime propter vitium illud habituale, quod omnes & singulos homines reos mortis aeternae coram Deo peragit? Hoc est quod jam non semel observavi, non posse imputationem immediatam primi Adae peccati actualis astrui, nisi negato habitualis vitii reatu. III. inquit, cum Paulus dicit vers. 17. mortem regnasse per unam offensam & vers. 19. multos esse constitutos peccatores unius hominis inobedientia; verba ista una offensa, & unius hominis inobedientia, non possunt aliud respicere quam ipsum factum Adami. i. divini mandati violationem. Esto, quid tum postea? Num inde sequitur, verbum ἁμαρτίαν non significare habitum peccati? aut primum Adami peccatum actuale nobis imputari immediate, seu prius quam nascamur corrupti? Mors regnat per unam offensam ita secundum habitum propagatam in omnes, ut in omnibus regnet mors, quia regnat peccatum. Unius hominis inobedientia secundum habitum propagata & multiplicata multi sunt constituti peccatores. Cur proximam mortis nostrae causam in alio quaerimus, cum se prodat ipsa in nobis, in corpore nostro, ac membris nostris, inhaerens, nempe illud peccatum, quod nisi crucifigatur gratia Christi, tam impotenter in nobis regnat?

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.