Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §41

Cap. VII: Force of the aorist ἥμαρτον — Rom. 3 and Rom. 5

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

From the words he adds: For the force of the aorist "sinned" (ἥμαρτον) is here to be weighed. For this tense, in the use of Scripture, is sometimes absolute from a special signification of time, as when it is said, "All have turned aside, they have become useless; they have sinned" (Romans 3:12, 23). For this contains all times — past, present, and future — so that it may be signified that those who were have sinned, those who are sin, those who will be will sin. Here nevertheless, where the Apostle multiplies aorists, their force ought to be regarded singly: that sin entered, that death entered, that all sinned. But sin entered as soon as Adam sinned, and the guilt of death entered together with that sin. Therefore also, as soon as Adam sinned, we all are understood to have sinned; which surely cannot be better expounded than if we say that Adam's sin is imputed to all. I will not say that this argument sins by ignorance of the elenchus; nor that it does not conclude what was controversial between its author and Placeus: for in this all D. Garissoles's arguments sin: for not even that which it concludes has any force of proving. For if the aorists "all have turned aside, have become useless, have sinned" (Romans 3) are absolute from a special signification of time, what is there why the aorists "sin entered, death entered, all sinned" (Romans 5:12) should not likewise be absolute from that signification? Their multiplication in this place, you will say, stands in the way. But did he not equally there and here count three aorists? And to those three which he praised from Romans 3 he could add two others from verses 13 and 17: "with their tongues they have used deceit," "the way of peace they have not known" (Romans 3:13, 17). Although I do not see why, if two or three aorists ought to be so taken, four or five or six cannot be taken in the same way. For the multiplication of aorists does not change their signification. To one affirming, therefore, and not proving, I oppose negation: I could also oppose the authority of great theologians who lived before us, but for brevity's sake I restrain myself, and reserve it for another place.

Latin

Ex verbis addit. Nam vis Aoristi ἥμαρτον hic perpendenda. Etenim tempus hoc, in usu Scripturae, aliquando absolutum est a speciali significatione temporis, ut cum dicitur, Omnes deflexerunt, inutiles facti sunt, peccaverunt. Rom. 3, 12. 23. Hoc enim omnia tempora praeteritum, praesens, et futurum continet; ut significetur peccasse, qui fuerunt, peccare qui sunt, peccaturos qui erunt. Hic tamen ubi multiplicat Apostolus Aoristos, vis eorum singulariter spectari debet: peccatum intraasse, mortem introiisse, omnes peccavisse. Intravit autem peccatum, ut primum Adam peccavit, et mortis reatus una cum illo peccato introiit. Ergo et ut primum peccavit Adam, nos omnes peccavisse intelligimur; quod sane melius exponi non potest, quam si dicamus peccatum Adae omnibus imputari. Non dicam peccare hoc argumentum ignoratione elenchi; nec id concludere quod erat inter suum autorem et Placeum controversum: Hoc enim peccant omnia D. Gar. argumenta: Nam ne id quidem quod concludit probandi vim ullam habet. Etenim si Aoristi, omnes deflexerunt, inutiles facti sunt, peccaverunt, Rom. 3. absoluti sunt a speciali significatione temporis, quid est, quamobrem similiter non sint ab ea significatione absoluti Aoristi, peccatum intravit, mors introiit, omnes peccaverunt, Rom. 5? Obstat, inquies, eorum hoc loco multiplicatio. At nonne aeque illic atque hic tres numeravit Aoristos? ac tribus illis quos laudavit ex Rom. 3. addere potuit alios duos ex vers. 13. et 17. linguis suis ad dolum usi sunt, viam veritatis non cognoverunt? Quanquam non video cur si duo aut tres Aoristi ita accipi debeant, non possint eodem modo quatuor, vel quinque, vel sex accipi. Non enim multiplicatio Aoristorum mutat eorum significationem. Affirmanti igitur, nec probanti negationem oppono: possem et magnorum, qui ante nos vixerunt, Theologorum autoritatem opponere, sed studio brevitatis mihi tempero, et in alium locum reservo.

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.