FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §13

Cap. IV: Manuscript Placeus — duplex imputatio of Adam's act; Garissoles approves

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

For in that Manuscript which D. Garissolius calls the Later, these words had gone before. The question set on foot between us is only about Adam's first sin taken in the first way — that is, about his actual disobedience, about that inward and outward act by which Adam transgressed God's law, cut off from the habitual corruption that followed that act: whether that is imputed to us when we are born. To this question it seems a bare negation does not yet answer; a distinction must again satisfy. For the mind can conceive a double imputation — Immediate and mediate (or, to say the same in other words, Antecedent and Consequent). Could Placeus more openly signify that he understands that distinction of imputation of that act by which Adam first made himself guilty? Next it was added that immediate imputation is that by which that act of Adam — that is, the eating of the forbidden fruit — is thought to be imputed to all his posterity (Christ excepted) proximately, immediately, by this very fact that they are sons of Adam, unto two penalties properly so called: the privation of original righteousness, and eternal death. But of that about which one member of the distinction is understood, the other ought to be understood as well; otherwise there would be no distinction; for one thing would not be distinguished. Finally Placeus added that mediate imputation is that which takes place through hereditary corruption. And of what sin, I ask, can imputation be made through that corruption, unless of Adam's actual sin, which produced that corruption? He also added this reason: For by participation in this corruption we communicate in Adam's sin, and, so to speak, habitually consent to it. By which words he openly distinguished Adam's sin from that corruption. Therefore he did not understand the corruption itself by Adam's sin, but the actual disobedience from which it flowed.

This reason of Placeus D. Garissolius approved and recommended, and even turned back. But upon whom, I do not know; for upon Placeus he could not, as is already plain. But if anyone else known to Placeus denied and refuted the imputation of Adam's actual sin, that must be taken of immediate or antecedent imputation alone, not of the mediate or consequent, which he neither wants denied, nor do his arguments attack.

Latin

Praecesserant enim in Manuscripto illo, quod D. Garissolius Posterius appellat, haec verba. Est igitur quaestio inter nos instituta dumtaxat de primo peccato Adami sumpto primo modo, hoc est de actuali eius inobedientia, de actione illa interna et externa, qua Dei legem transgressus est Adam, praecisa ab habituali corruptione, quae actionem illam secuta est: an ea nobis nascentibus imputetur? Huic quaestioni nondum negatione simplici, sed distinctione rursus satisfaciendum videtur. Est enim animo concipi duplex imputatio, Immediata et mediata (vel, ut idem aliis verbis dicam) Antecedens et Consequens. Potuitne Placeus apertius significare, se distinctionem illam imputationis de actione illa, qua primum Adamus reum se fecit, intelligere? Deinde subiiciebatur, Imputationem immediatam esse eam, qua putatur actio illa Adami, hoc est, vetiti fructus manducatio, eius posteris omnibus (Christo excepto) proxime, immediate, hoc ipso quod filii sunt Adami, imputari ad duas poenas proprie dictas, privationem iustitiae originalis, et mortem aeternam. Iam autem de quo unum distinctionis membrum intelligitur, de eodem intelligi debet alterum; alioqui non esset distinctio; non enim unum quid distingueretur. Denique subiungebat Placeus Imputationem mediatam esse eam, quae sit mediante corruptione haereditaria. Cuius autem, quaeso, peccati imputatio fieri potest mediante illa corruptione, nisi peccati actualis Adami, quod corruptionem illam peperit? Addebat etiam hanc rationem: Huius enim corruptionis participatione communicamus peccato Adami, eique, ut ita loquar, habitualiter consentimus. Quibus verbis aperte distinguebat peccatum Adami ab illa corruptione. Itaque non ipsam corruptionem intelligebat per peccatum Adami, sed actualem inobedientiam, unde illa fluxit. Hanc autem Placei rationem D. Garissolius approbavit et commendavit, ac etiam retorfit. Sed in quem, nescio; in Placeum enim non potuit, ut iam patet. Si quis autem alius Placeo notus imputationem actualis peccati Adae negavit et refutavit, id de imputatione immediata seu antecedente sola accipi debet, non de mediata seu consequente, quam neque vult negatam, neque etiam eius argumenta oppugnant.

About this text

New English, free to read. Open any section below.

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.