FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §177

Man. Post. Cap. II §XIV: Garissoles 3 / Placeus — Calvin quia intra nos; before duplex question

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

Garissoles: (3) When our first parent's corruption is said to be imputed to us his posterity not as it stuck in Adam himself but as it passed into us, what is that reason instantly offered—namely that our hereditary corruption is of the same species as the corruption that was in Adam? Does that specific identity of the two corruptions make the former imputed to us? If so, nothing can explain why the corruption of all our ancestors should not likewise be said to be imputed to us, and so on. Placeus: Here too he invents a monster to slay. He both truncates my reason and misreads it. He truncates: he omits the words immediately before—and, to use Calvin's phrasing, "because it is within us"—and what follows: that Adam shared with us both his nature and his moral corruption. He misreads: by those words "For our hereditary corruption is the same in species as that which once was in Adam" I did not mean to explain why Adam's sin in the third sense is imputed to us, but why it is said to be within us. Why it is imputed I showed when I said, again with Calvin, "because it is within us"—a causal "because" that could have warned him had he cared to listen. So with Calvin on Romans 5:17 I said it is imputed because it is within us; and that it can be called within us because our hereditary corruption is the same in species as that which was in Adam. I illustrated that by a likeness from our very nature: since it is the same in species as Adam's and propagated from him, Adam can be said to have shared his nature with us—and no less his corruption, or sin. So Adam's sin can be said to have been propagated into us, to have entered us, to be within us. That is the force of my reasoning; from it, reader, you see how far Dr. Garissoles strays.

Latin

GAR. 3. Quando dicitur primi nostri parentis corruptio nobis posteris illius imputari, non quatenus haesit in ipso Adamo, sed quatenus transiit in nos: quanam est illa, quae statim profertur, hujus rei ratio; quod scilicet corruptio nostra haereditaria, sit ejusdem speciei cum corruptione, quae fuit in Adamo? An igitur specifica illa duarum corruptionum identitas id efficit, ut prior nobis imputetur? Quod si est, nihil causae dici potest, cur non omnium nostrorum majorum corruptio nobis imputari dicenda sit &c. PLAC. Hic quoque monstrum sibi fingit, quod debellet. Meam enim istam rationem & truncat, & perperam interpretatur. Truncat: omittit enim & verba immediate praecedentia, ac ut verbis utar Calvini, quia intra nos est, & sequentia, ac quam suam naturam, tam suam corruptionem moralem nobiscum Adamus communicavit. Male interpretatur: Non enim verbis illis, Est enim corruptio nostra haereditaria eadem specie cum illa quae olim fuit in Adamo, rationem reddere volui, cur peccatum Adami tertio modo acceptum nobis imputetur; sed cur dicatur intra nos esse. Quare imputetur ostendi, cum dixi, ac ut verbis utar Calvini, quia intra nos est: id quod causalis quia monere eum potuisset, si voluisset attendere. Dixi ergo cum Calvino ad Rom. 5. 17. ideo imputari, quia intra nos est: Posse autem intra nos dici, quia corruptio nostra haereditaria est eadem specie cum illa quae fuit in Adamo. Idque illustravi similitudine ducta ab ipsa natura nostra, quae, quia specie eadem est cum natura Adami, & ab ea propagata, inde fit ut dici possit Adamus naturam suam nobiscum communicasse: non minus autem nobiscum communicavit corruptionem suam, seu peccatum. Potest igitur dici peccatum Adami in nos propagatum, in nos introiisse, intra nos esse. Haec est ratiocinii mei vis; a qua vides, Lector, quam aberret D. Garissolius.

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.