Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §64

Cap. VII: "Sinned in Adam before existing" — three denials and contradiction

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

I return to the argument set out above at page 70 — so proposed that three of its lines were repeated by the typographer and not deleted by the corrector, so hurried was he then, distracted by other business. It runs thus: "Those who, when they were not yet in the nature of things, are said to have sinned in another are doubtless counted, while he was committing the sin, to have committed it themselves also, which plainly pertains to imputation. But all men, when they were not yet, are said to have sinned in Adam. Therefore they are counted, while he was committing the sin, to have committed it themselves, which plainly pertains to the imputation of Adam's sin." First I deny that this plainly pertains to the imputation which I call antecedent or immediate. For why should it not rather pertain to the propagation of inherent sin, which guilt and imputation follow? Next I deny the major. For are those who are said to have been in another, or to have died, counted, while he existed or died, to have existed themselves and to have died? We certainly die in Adam, but each by his own death; just as we rise in Christ, each by his own resurrection. So we sin in Adam, but each by his own sin. Only the first author and fountain of sin and death is marked, from which they flowed out to us all. Finally I deny the minor. For the Apostle did not say that all men, when they were not yet, sinned in Adam. I have already shown that ἐφ᾽ ᾧ does not mean "in whom" in this place. He did say that through one man sin so entered into the world that all men sinned, but he did not say that they sinned in that one man: and much less did he say that they then sinned when they were not yet in the nature of things. For this seems to me to imply a plain contradiction. For who would not see a contradiction implied if someone should say that the accident was before the subject, that men were sinners before they were men, dead before living — indeed, that they sinned before they existed?

Latin

Redeo ad argumentum supra pag. 70. ita propositum, ut ejus tres lineae a Typographo repetitae fuerint, nec a Correctore, adeo aliis distractus negotiis tunc festinabat, deletae. Id sic habet. Qui, cum nondum essent in rerum natura, dicuntur in alio peccasse, censentur proculdubio eo commitente peccatum, & ipsi etiam commisisse, quod evidenter ad imputationem pertinet. Atqui homines omnes cum nondum essent, dicuntur in Adamo peccasse. Ergo censentur eo commitente peccatum, & ipsi commisisse, quod ad imputationem peccati Adae manifeste pertinet. Primo nego id evidenter ad imputationem pertinere quam antecedentem seu immediatam voco. Cur enim non pertineat potius ad propagationem peccati inhaerentis, quod reatus & imputatio sequitur? Deinde nego majorem. An enim qui dicuntur in alio fuisse, vel mortui fuisse, censentur eo existente vel moriente & ipsi extitisse, & mortui fuisse? Morimur certe in Adamo, sed sua quisque morte; sicut resurgimus in Christo sua quisque resurrectione. Sic peccamus in Adamo, sed suo quisque peccato. Notatur tantum peccati & mortis primus autor & fons, unde ad nos omnes dimanarunt. Denique nego minorem. Non enim dixit Apostolus, omnes homines, cum nondum essent, in Adamo peccasse. Jam ostendi, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ non significare hoc loco in quo. Dixit quidem per unum hominem peccatum ita in mundum intrasse, ut omnes homines peccaverint, sed non dixit, peccasse in uno illo homine: Multo vero minus dixit tunc peccasse cum nondum essent in rerum natura. Hoc enim mihi videtur manifestam contradictionem implicare. Quis enim contradictionem implicari non videat, si quis dicat, prius esse accidens quam subjectum, prius homines fuisse peccatores quam homines, mortuos quam viventes, imo prius peccasse quam 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.