Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §42

Cap. VII: Death and inhering sin entered — not one imputed number

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

This I observe: that death entered into all men — not one death numerically imputed to all, but each man's own. This cannot be denied. It is also established that through one man sin truly entered into all men — not one numerically, but each one's own and inhering. Is it not so? If you acknowledge these things, why do you not rest in them? If you deny them, you who profess to subscribe the public confession of faith? Shall I recall even the following words to examination? Why not? For it interests the truth that whatever is not right be corrected. "But sin entered," he says, "as soon as Adam sinned." Certainly into Adam, but through Adam into all other men, who then were none — how could it then enter? But the Apostle does not say that sin entered into one man, but through one man into the world, that is, into all men (Romans 5:12). And it is established that through one man there entered into all men, Christ alone excepted, inhering sin constituting us guilty of death in the divine forum. Why then should we not acknowledge that in Paul's words? Who would also believe that the Apostle understands by death the guilt of death rather than by sin? For give a place, if you can, where death signifies not death but only the guilt of death, especially when it is regarded, as it is here, as the effect and wages of sin, and is distinguished from it (Romans 6:23). Did Adam's actual sin enter into all men otherwise than insofar as either its pravity by propagation or its guilt by imputation entered into them? If therefore D. Garissoles understood guilt when it is said that sin entered, how could he understand the same guilt when it is added that through the sin which entered into all men death also entered into the same? For the rest, "as soon as Adam sinned, we all are understood to have sinned" — namely in the way that, as soon as he was or was created, we all are understood to have been or to have been created. Would one therefore be to be borne who should simply say that we all existed from the beginning of the world?

Latin

Illud observo, mortem introiisse in omnes homines non unam numero omnibus imputatam, sed suam cuique homini propriam. Hoc non potest negari. Constat etiam per unum hominem peccatum revera intraasse in omnes homines non unum numero, sed suum cuique proprium et inhaerens. Nonne? Haec si agnoscis, cur iis non acquiescis? Si negas, qui publicae fidei confessioni subscribere te profiteris? Revocabo-ne ad examen etiam verba sequentia? Quid-ni? interest enim veritatis quicquid rectum non est corrigi. Intravit autem, inquit, peccatum, ut primum Adam peccavit. Certe quidem in Adamum, sed per Adamum in alios omnes homines, qui tunc nulli erant, quomodo tunc intrare potuit? Non dicit autem Apostolus, peccatum intraasse in unum hominem, sed per unum hominem in mundum, id est, in omnes homines. Constat autem per unum hominem intraasse in omnes homines, uno Christo excepto, peccatum inhaerens nos in foro divino reos mortis constituens. Cur ergo illud in Pauli verbis non agnoscamus? Quis etiam credat, Apostolum per mortem reatum mortis, potius quam per peccatum, intelligere? Da enim locum, si potes, ubi mors non mortem, sed tantum reatum mortis significet, praesertim cum spectatur, ut sit hic, tanquam peccati effectum et stipendium, ab eoque distinguitur? An aliter peccatum actuale Adami in omnes homines introiit, quam quatenus ejus vel pravitas propagatione, vel reatus imputatione in eos introiit? Si ergo reatum D. Gar. intellexit cum dicitur peccatum introiisse, qui eundem reatum intelligere potuit, cum additur, per peccatum quod introiit in omnes homines, in eosdem mortem etiam introiisse? Caeterum ut primum peccavit Adam, nos omnes peccavisse intelligimur, nimirum quomodo, ut primum fuit vel creatum est, nos omnes fuisse vel creati fuisse intelligimur. An igitur ferendus esset, qui simpliciter diceret, nos omnes ab initio mundi fuisse?

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.