Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §305

Man. Post. Cap. VI: PLAC one offense / dual-foedus critique tip

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

PLAC. The Apostle mentions one offense and disobedience of one man because that one offense corrupted the nature of one man, and such nature as that one had, such he propagated into his posterity. But what is this to an antecedent imputation which the Apostle did not teach, and which is thought to precede all natural propagation and to hang on God's will alone? The reason remains: if that first disobedience is imputed because when Adam committed it he was our head, then when he committed others he was also our head, and his other disobediences ought to have been imputed to us—for the reason is the same on both sides. To the other reply, which he again fetches from I know not what covenant he had already mentioned several times, I say that covenant is neither taught in the sacred letters, nor becoming to God, nor was any benefit of it constituted against us rather than for us; and even if Adam had been shaken out of its benefit, if it was any, there would still have remained the binding force to obedience, and if it were less performed, to increasing the penalty. Otherwise what was that covenant? The same as the covenant they call of nature, or different from it? If the same, Adam remained bound to obey the law of the covenant of nature, and all his sins were violations of that covenant: why then did he not also remain head of the race by relation of that covenant? If different, then two covenants were contracted with Adam and the human race, one of nature, the other—how shall it be named (for it was certainly not of grace)—and why is violation of this rather imputed to the whole human race than of that which, being of nature, belongs to the whole nature of men? Add that I do not understand why that covenant constituted Adam head of men which long ceased to be before Adam begot anyone; nor how Adam is called head of the human race by relation to that covenant under which his posterity never were. Surely he was not head of posterity if, before any of his posterity existed, he ceased to be their head; nor, I think, is he called head by relation of covenant, but rather by relation to posterity founded in generation. So he would not have been head except at the moment he sinned—that is, he would not have been head except when they did not yet exist of whom he would be called head, and when they existed he would no longer have been their head: let him digest that who can; I certainly cannot digest it.

Latin

PLAC. Apostolus unam unius offensam & inobedientiam memorat, quia una illa offensa corrupit naturam unius, qualem autem iste unus habuit naturam, talem in suos posteros propagavit. Sed quid hoc ad imputationem antecedentem, quam Apostolus non docuit, & quae omnem propagationem naturalem antecedere putatur, & a Dei duntaxat voluntate pendere? Manet ratio, si ideo imputatur prima illa inobedientia, quia Adamus cum eam committeret nostrum erat caput, quando cum alias committebat nostrum etiam erat caput, debuerunt etiam aliae eius inobedientiae nobis imputari: eadem enim utrobique ratio est. Ad alteram responsionem, quam rursus a nescio quo foedere, cuius iam aliquoties meminerat, arcessit, dico illud foedus nec in sacris literis doceri, nec Deum decere, nec eius ullum fuisse beneficium, contra nos, non pro nobis constitutum: & quamvis eius beneficio, si quod erat, excussus fuisset Adamus, tamen remansisset vis obligandi ad obedientiam, & si minus ea praestaretur, ad augendam poenam. Alioqui quod fuit illud foedus? idem cum foedere quod vocant naturae, an ab eo diversum? Si idem, mansit obligatus Adamus ad obsequendum legi foederis naturae, eiusque omnia peccata foederis illius violationes fuerunt: cur ergo etiam illius foederis relatione caput generis non permansit? Si diversum, duo igitur cum Adamo, atque genere humano contracta sunt foedera, unum naturae, alterum quomodo appellabitur, (gratiae enim certe quidem non fuit) & cur huius violatio potius imputetur toti generi humano, quam illius, quod cum sit naturae, ad naturam hominum totam pertinet? Adde quod non intelligo, quare id foedus hominum caput constituerit Adamum, quod diu esse desiit, antequam Adamus quemquam gigneret? Nec quomodo Adamus dicatur caput generis humani relatione ad id foedus, sub quo eius posteri nunquam fuerant? Certe caput non fuit posterorum, si antequam ulli fuerint eius posteri, desiit esse eorum caput: nec opinor, dicitur caput relatione foederis, sed potius relatione ad posteros fundata in generatione. Ita non fuisset caput, nisi quo momento peccavit, hoc est, non fuisset caput nisi quando ii nondum fuerunt quorum diceretur caput, quando fuerunt non fuisset amplius eorum caput, quod concoquat qui potest, ego certe concoquere non possum.

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.