On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §137

Cap. XI: Socinians, Arminians, Walaeus — Garissoles’s arguments closed before Cap. XII

As for the Socinians, since they differ not at all from the Pelagians, what more is there to say? As for the Arminians, by God's kindness Placeus shrinks from their errors too. The learned Walaeus, answering Corvinus for the distinguished Du Moulin, did not hesitate to deny immediate imputation in plain words — as we noted above at page 22 — and is not for that reason thought to side with the Remonstrants. And those were Lord Garissoles's arguments.

Latin

De Socinianis, cum nihil differant a Pelagianis, quid opus est dicere? Ad Arminianos autem quod spectat, ab eorum etiam erroribus, Dei beneficio, abhorret Placeus. Qui autem pro Clariss. Molineo Respondit Corvino doctissimus Walaeus, is non dubitavit imputationem immediatam disertis verbis negare, uti a nobis observatum est supra, pag. 22. nec propterea partibus Remonstrantium favere existimatur. Atque haec fuerunt argumenta D. Garissolii.

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.