On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §292

Man. Post. Cap. VI: GAR erotemata 1–7 on head/imputation

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

GAR. 1. If he sinned as the head of the human race, why ought he not also to have been punished under that title? 2. Why is Adam's sin rather imputed to posterity than posterity's to Adam? 3. Since Adam after that sin did not at once cease to be head, why are Adam's following sins not equally imputed to posterity as the first? 4. Why is actual sin, which is a transient action, rather said to be imputed than habitual, which was a permanent vice? 5. If the first act of sinning was an act of nature, why not also the first act of begetting? Yet no one would say that we in Adam begot Cain or Seth. 6. If as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, so also Adam's sin is ours by imputation, why is Christ called our righteousness, but Adam is not also called our sin? 7. When we are said to have sinned in Adam, is it proper or improper speech? It cannot be called proper unless we say that something simultaneously is and is not: for properly speaking, when Adam sinned, we would have been, we would not have been. If it is not proper, it must be reduced to the proper. But what does it properly signify that we were in Adam, except that we draw origin from Adam, or that Adam's being is the cause of our being?

Latin

GAR. 1. Si peccavit ut caput generis humani, cur non etiam puniri debuit eo nomine? 2. Cur potius Adami peccatum posteris, quam posterorum Adae imputatur? 3. Cum Adamus post illud peccatum, confestim non desierit esse caput, cur non sequentia Adami peccata aeque posteris imputantur atque primum? 4. Cur potius actuale peccatum, quod est actio transiens, imputari dicitur, quam habituale, quod fuit vitium permanens? 5. Si primus actus peccandi fuit actus naturae, cur non etiam primus actus generandi? Nemo tamen dixerit nos in Adamo Cainum aut Sethum genuisse. 6. Si ut Christi justitia nobis imputatur, ita & peccatum Adae nostrum est imputatione, cur non, ut Christus dicitur, justitia nostra, dicitur etiam Adamus peccatum nostrum? 7. Cum dicimur peccasse in Adamo, estne propria, an impropria locutio? Propria dici non potest, nisi dicamus, aliquid simul esse & non esse: proprie enim loquendo, tum cum Adamus peccavit, fuissemus, non fuissemus. Si propria non est, revocanda est ad propriam. Quid autem significat proprie nos fuisse in Adamo, nisi nos ducere ab Adamo originem, vel esse Adami esse causam nostri esse?

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.