FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §135

Cap. XI: Placeus opposed to Pelagius point by point — not a Pelagian

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

Here Garissoles, at length and with several witnesses, confirms that Pelagius believed in no imputation of Adam's sin. To what end? I do not know. Who denies it? Does that make Placeus Pelagius's ally? Placeus's teaching contradicts the Pelagian one as plainly as can be. Pelagius condemned every imputation of Adam's sin; Placeus condemns only the immediate. Pelagius thought no imputation of Adam's sin just; Placeus holds some just — namely the mediate. Pelagius denied original sin; Placeus confesses and proves it. How can people so opposed be said to make common cause? Yes, Pelagius denies immediate imputation, and so does Placeus — but the Pelagian heresy never sat in that denial. Not everything Pelagius denied or affirmed is heresy by that fact alone. Shall I run through all Garissoles pins on the Pelagians in section VI? (1) They denied that original justice was lost; Placeus affirms it was. Pelagius acknowledged no original justice at all; Placeus does. They held we are born without virtue and without vice; Placeus holds we are born steeped in vice. So for them infants stand where Adam stood before the fall; for Placeus infants stand in a far worse state. (2) They denied any corruption in human nature from the start; Placeus affirms it. (3) They took the necessity of dying not as sin's penalty but as nature's sequel and condition — Adam would have died whether he sinned or not; Placeus takes dying as undergoing penalty, and teaches that Adam would not have died had he not sinned. (4) They denied that any infants are damned with eternal penalties, since those come only from each one's own injustice; Placeus does not deny eternal penalties, knowing they also arise from innate injustice. Finally they thought no penalty at all is laid on posterity for Adam's sin; Placeus thinks some is — namely death. So he owns immediate imputation of Adam's habitual sin as propagated and present in us, and mediate imputation of Adam's actual sin once done outside us. Reader, Placeus is no Pelagian. Why then does Garissoles waste the reader's patience proving what no one denies — that Pelagius denied Adam's sin's imputation — and list Pelagius's errors as if Placeus shared them?

Latin

Hic D. Garissolius multis verbis, ac prolatis aliquot testibus, confirmat Pelagium nullam imputationem Adamici peccati credidisse. Quorsum? nescio. Quis enim negat? An propterea Placeus paria facit cum Pelagio? Nonne Placei sententia Pelagianae contradicit apertissime? Pelagius omnem imputationem peccati Adae damnabat, Placeus non omnem, sed immediatam duntaxat. Ille nullam imputationem peccati Adae justam esse putabat, Placeus nonnullam esse arbitratur justam, nempe mediatam. Ille peccatum originale negabat, Placeus contra peccatum originale confitetur & probat. Qui tantopere opponuntur, quomodo paria facere dicuntur? At negat Pelagius imputationem immediatam, quam etiam Placeus negat. At, inquam, in ea negatione nunquam sita fuit haeresis Pelagiana. Non quicquid aut negavit, aut affirmavit Pelagius, continuo haereticum est. Percurramne illa omnia quae D. Garissolius Pelagianis tribuit § VI? Illi, inquit, 1. Justitiam originalem deperditam fuisse negabant. Placeus contra deperditam fuisse affirmat. Imo justitiam nullam originalem agnoscebat. Placeus justitiam originalem agnoscit. Sentiebant nos ut sine virtute sic sine vitio nasci. Sentit Placeus nos penitissime imbutos vitio nasci. Itaque infantes in illo statu esse in quo fuerat Adam ante praevaricationem. Itaque infantes non esse in eo statu in quo fuerat Adam ante praevaricationem, sed in multo deteriore. 2. Naturae humanae aliquam ab origine corruptionem inesse negabant. Placeus contra affirmat. 3. Necessitatem moriendi non habebant pro poena peccati, sed pro sequela & conditione naturae. Docebant enim Adamum sive peccasset, sive non peccasset, moriturum. Placeus habet necessitatem moriendi pro necessitate subeundi poenam, non autem pro sequela & conditione naturae. Docet enim Adamum, si non peccasset, non fuisse moriturum. 4. Poenis aeternis infantes ullos damnari negabant, eas quippe non aliunde quam ex propria uniuscujusque injustitia provenire. Placeus id non negat, quippe qui sciat poenas aeternas etiam ex innata injustitia provenire. Denique nullam omnino poenam propter Adae peccatum posteris irrogari putaverunt: Placeus contra aliquam poenam propter Adae peccatum posteris irrogari putat, nempe mortem. Itaque imputationem agnoscit immediatam peccati Adae habitualis propagati ac intra nos existentis, & mediatam peccati Adae actualis extra nos olim producti. Vides igitur, Lector, Placeum nullo modo esse Pelagianum: Quorsum ergo D. G. hoc loco patientia lectoris ad id probandum quod nemo negat, Pelagium negasse imputationem peccati Adami, abutitur, ejusque errores enumerat, quasi illorum Placeus esset particeps?

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.