Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §198

Man. Post. Cap. II: Placeus — his own argument; mediate looks to Adam's actual first sin

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

Placeus: Is my own argument suddenly against me? Am I the one insisting that Adam's actual disobedience is imputed to none of his posterity, that nobody bears its penalties, that nobody can be held guilty for it? The opposite is clearer: I insist that it is imputed to Adam's posterity, that they bear its penalties, that they are held guilty for it. If not, why peel hereditary corruption out of the state of the question? Why introduce immediate versus mediate imputation? Why frame the question's attribute as Whether Adam's actual disobedience is imputed to us as we are born? Why, when I fixed the controversy's state, attach a limit drawn from that distinction? And why do the reasons I had set out together—and the Learned Man tore apart—matter at all? I was giving a reason why some sin is imputed to us. The wording is too open to allow denial. Which sin? Only Adam's first actual. When I called hereditary corruption the habit the first sin left in Adam's soul, I could not mean any other first sin than that first actual. When I called it a bent toward like sins, I meant like that first actual—nothing else fits. When I called it habitual consent to that sin, I meant by that sin not the corruption itself, but the first actual act by which Adam corrupted himself.

Latin

PLAC. Itane argumentatio, quae tota mea est, causam meam evertit? Itane contendo acriter ipsam Adami actualem inobedientiam nemini posterorum imputari, neminem ejus poenas ferre, neminem propter eam reum haberi posse? Quid clarius, quam me potius contendere eam Adami posteris imputari, eos ejus poenas ferre, propter eam reos haberi? Alioqui, quorsum seposui corruptionem haereditariam a statu quaestionis? Cur imputationis immediatae & mediatae distinctionem attuli? Cur sic distinguendum censui attributum quaestionis, Utrum actualis inobedientia Adami nobis nascentibus imputetur? Cur constituens statum controversiae ei limitationem ab illa distinctione petitam adhibui? Quorsum etiam pertinent istae ipsae rationes, quas conjunctim proposueram & Vir Doctus disjunxit? Volui certe rationem reddere, cur peccatum aliquod nobis imputetur, nonne? Nimis diserta sunt verba mea quam ut id possit negari. Quod ergo peccatum intellexi? Nullum potui, praeter actuale primum Adami. Dixi corruptionem haereditariam esse habitum, quem primum peccatum reliquit in Adami anima: nonne vides me aliud primum peccatum intelligere non posse, quam actuale illud primum? Dixi illam corruptionem esse propensionem ad similia peccata, nempe similia illi primo actuali, alia intelligi non possunt. Dixi eam esse consensum habitualem ad illud peccatum. Quis non videt per illud peccatum me corruptionem non intelligere, sed actuale illud primum quo se ipse Adamus corrupit?

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.