On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §350

Man. Post. Cap. VI: PLAC — GAR already grants nature-law; why impute to God?

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

What is there in this my opinion that is not consentaneous either to Scripture or to right reason? You yourself in cap. 1, constituting the state of the question, confessed that the propagation of original vice is done by the law of nature, by which each begets one like himself: you therefore acknowledge the truth of my opinion—what is it that, not content with that, you ascribe the cause of our original vice to God considering Adam's actual sin in a certain way and imputing it to us and inflicting that vice on us? Tell me, I ask, if you can, what necessity there was why God should consider us all as one man in Adam? why he should consider Adam's first actual sin in another way than other sins? why he should impute it to us? You will doubtless be compelled, with certain others whom there is no need to name, to refer that whole thing to God's will.

Latin

Quid est in hac mea sententia quod non sit, aut Scripturae, aut rectae rationi consentaneum? Tu ipse cap. 1. constituendo statum quaestionis fassus es propagationem vitii originis fieri lege naturae, qua quisque sibi similem gignit: agnoscis igitur meae sententiae veritatem: quid est cur ea non contentus causam nostri vitii originalis Deo certo modo peccatum actuale Adami consideranti & imputanti nobis & infligenti nobis illud vitium, imputes? Dic mihi quaeso si potes, quae necessitas fuerit, cur nos omnes Deus consideraret tanquam unum hominem in Adamo? cur primum Adami peccatum actuale consideraret alio modo quam alia peccata? cur id nobis imputaret? cogeris proculdubio cum aliis quibusdam, quos nihil nominare opus est, id universum in Dei voluntatem referre.

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.