Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §686

Man. Post. Cap. X: PLAC — judicial imputation always tracks some law; Canaan case is not universal judgment

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

PLAC. First, the discussion was about law in general, not in species about an external law.

So the learned man wanders from the argument to which he professes to reply.

Next, it was not asked whether laws had been set for God according to which he must necessarily act.

That is plainly foreign to the purpose.

I contend only that every judicial imputation of sin is made according to some law.

For how can an act be judicial if it is not from a judge, and as befits a judge?

But a judge, when he imputes sin, when he condemns, when he punishes, has respect to a law, that justice may be done, that the law may be satisfied.

Otherwise I do not see why such an act is called judicial.

As for his saying that Ham the father’s sin was imputed by God to Canaan: if that is true, that imputation was not a judicial act; and so it did not reach all Ham’s posterity; or if it was judicial, among all Ham’s sons the author or sharer of that guilt was Canaan alone.

Certainly Noah, when he pronounced the curse, expressed that one’s name alone—and thrice—even omitting father Ham.

Latin

PLAC. Primum de lege in genere agebatur, non in specie de lege externa. Aberrat igitur Vir doctus ab argumento cui respondere se profitetur. Deinde, non quaerebatur, an essent positae leges Deo secundum quas ipsi necessario agendum esset. Hoc plane alienum est a proposito. Tantum contendo omnem imputationem peccati iudiciariam fieri secundum aliquam legem. Quomodo enim actio iudiciaria esse potest, si non sit a iudice, & ut iudicem decet? Iudex autem cum peccatum imputat, cum damnat, cum punit, respectum habet ad legem, ut iustitiae, ut legi satisfiat. Alioqui causam non video, cur eiusmodi actio iudiciaria dicatur. Quod ait imputatum a Deo Canaanis peccatum patris Chami fuisse, id si verum est, imputatio illa non fuit actio iudiciaria; itaque non pertinuit ad omnes Chami posteros; aut si iudiciaria fuit, ex omnibus filiis Chami auctor vel particeps illius culpae solus Canaan fuit. Certe illius solius, etiam patre Chamo omisso, Noachus, cum maledictionem pronunciaret, nomen, & quidem ter, expressit.

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.