FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §156

Man. Post. Cap. I: Garissoles on Chamier duplex; Placeus rejects imputed/inherent split

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

GARISSOLES. Chamier clearly divides two things in original sin: that it is the penalty of the first sin, and that it is an inward vice inhering in us. The first was not in dispute with Pighius and the others he answers in that book, so he does not press it here. The only question was whether original sin has the true character of vice and corruption. Chamier affirms and proves it; and taking original sin as vice, he rightly sets its nature in those three heads. PLACEUS. I do not see what that distinction is for. Who ever called original sin twofold—one the penalty of the first actual sin, the other inherent vice—or made two parts of it, penalty and inward sin? Those who teach immediate imputation of Adam's first actual sin do say either that original sin is twofold (imputed and inherent) or that it has two parts—the chief being Adam's imputed actual sin, the lesser hereditary corruption. If Chamier held that, how could he say those three heads contain the whole nature of original sin, or add that once they are proved nothing remains? He would have left out the chief part. And if Pelagian heresy partly lay in denying that imputation, as Garissoles claims, Catholics ought to have proved the imputation first of all, especially since Stapleton and some other Papists openly denied it. Of Chamier, if need be, elsewhere.

Latin

GARISSOLIUS. Chamierus duo in Peccato originali manifeste distinguit, quod poena est peccati primi, et quod vitium est internum in nobis haerens. Sed prius non veniebat in controversiam cum Pighio, et aliis quos eo libro refutat; itaque eam considerationem non urget hoc loco. Sed quaerebatur tantum, an peccatum originale veram haberet rationem vitii et corruptionis. Affirmat Chamierus, et probat; Et peccatum originale considerans jam, qua vitium est, haud immerito ejus naturam in illis tribus constituit. PLACEUS. Quorsum spectet ista distinctio, nescio? Quis enim unquam peccatum originale dixit esse duplex: unum, poenam peccati primi actualis, alterum, vitium inhaerens; aut duas esse peccati originalis partes: unam poenam peccati primi, alteram peccatum internum in nobis haerens? Sed qui imputationem primi Adae peccati actualis immediatam docent, illi, vel duplex esse dicunt peccatum originale: unum imputatum, alterum inhaerens; vel duas peccati originalis partes; primariam et praecipuam peccatum actuale Adami imputatum, minus praecipuam corruptionem haereditariam. In qua opinione si fuit Chamierus, quomodo in illis tribus, quae commemoravit, universam peccati originalis naturam contineri asseruit? Quomodo addidit; Itaque iis demonstratis nihil erit reliqui factum? Omississet enim praecipuam peccati originalis partem. Adde quod si haeresis Pelagiana in imputationis illius negatione pars sita fuit, ut voluit D. Garissolius, decuit Catholicos eam imputationem inprimis demonstrare, praesertim cum a Stapletono, aliisque nonnullis Pontificiis, aperte negata fuisset. Sed de Chamiero, si opus erit, alibi disputabitur.

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.