On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §70

Cap. VIII: παράπτωμα vs χάρισμα — Adam's sin is not God's "gift"

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

Next, he says, the Apostle sets opposite Adam's παράπτωμα and Christ's χάρισμα (Romans 5:15). But by χάρισμα is understood that righteousness of Christ which becomes ours by gracious imputation, and which necessarily pours forth from itself sanctification, or inhering righteousness. Therefore by παράπτωμα also is understood that sin of Adam which becomes ours by imputation, and which our natural corruption necessarily and infallibly follows. Entirely so: the Apostle does set opposite Adam's παράπτωμα and Christ's χάρισμα. What follows from that? Have we not already met several times an argument drawn from this opposition? For the rest, either this syllogism is irregular and has no force of concluding, or a proposition has been omitted which, if it is conceived universally as it ought to be, will without doubt be false. But the opposition between Adam's παράπτωμα and Christ's χάρισμα warns us that this which is ours is far otherwise than that. For it is not that, as this is ours by the gift of Christ, so that is ours by the gift of Adam. Therefore the Apostle sets the one opposite the other in the mode by which it becomes ours. How then can D. Garissoles conclude from this opposition that both become ours in the same mode? Will he say that imputation, by which something becomes ours which otherwise is not ours, is a kind of donation? Then Adam's sin is a kind of gift — not Adam's, for he does not impute; but, I shudder to pronounce it, God's own.

Latin

Deinde, inquit, opponuntur ab Apostolo τὸ παράπτωμα Adami & τὸ χάρισμα Christi. At per χάρισμα intelligitur iustitia illa Christi, quae gratiosa imputatione fit nostra, & quae sanctificationem, sive iustitiam inhaerentem ex se necessario fundit. Ergo & παράπτωμα intelligitur peccatum illud Adami, quod imputatione nostrum fit, & quod corruptio nostra naturalis necessario & infallibiliter sequitur. Omnino opponuntur ab Apostolo τὸ παράπτωμα Adami & τὸ χάρισμα Christi. Quid inde sequitur? Nonne jam aliquoties argumento ducto ab hac oppositione occurrimus? Caeterum aut anomalus est hic syllogismus, nec vim ullam concludendi habet, aut omissa est propositio, quae si universaliter, ut debet, concipiatur, erit falsa procul dubio. Admonet autem nos oppositio inter παράπτωμα Adami & χάρισμα Christi, longe aliter hoc nostrum esse quam illud. Non enim, ut hoc nostrum est dono Christi, sic illud est nostrum dono Adami. Alterum ergo alteri opponit Apostolus in modo quo fit nostrum. Quomodo igitur ex hac oppositione concludere potest D. G. utrumque eodem modo nostrum fieri? Dicet-ne imputationem, qua aliquid nostrum fit, alioqui non nostrum, esse donationem quandam. Est igitur Adami peccatum donum quoddam, non Adami, hic enim non imputat; sed, horresco pronuncians, ipsius Dei.

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.