Cap. VI: Maresius cited — friendship reply; consequent vs antecedent imputation

There came forth at Groningen from John Nicolas in the year of the Lord 1646 A New Synopsis of Elenctic Theology, or Index of the controversies of the faith from the Holy Scriptures compiled by Jacob Tirinus the Jesuit, and enlarged, emended, and refuted with a perpetual Censure, by Samuel Maresius, Doctor of Sacred Theology and ordinary Professor of the same Faculty in the Provincial Academy of Groningen and Omland. In which, Controversy 20, on the state of the first parents and on original sin, number 4, on occasion of certain words of Tirinus, the most distinguished man digresses into that Controversy on the imputation of Adam's first disobedience, and when he had made mention of Socinus, Curcellaeus, and others who deny all imputation of that sin, and also of the Decree of the National Synod of the Churches of France, and of the booklet edited by the distinguished Rivetus, he added: Not only do the opponents attack that imputation, but also (which was the occasion of that Synodical Decree) the Reverend, most learned and most celebrated man, my former most sweet fellow-soldier in studies, D. Josué Placeus, Disputations of Saumur, part I, page 206 and following, entirely rejects it beyond right and law, while he studies well and orthodoxly to defend the hereditary corruption which is in all: since both that ought to be admitted, and this is to be acknowledged, as walking with equal step; yet so that by order of nature, and by the notable reason of the transplant of inborn corruption, the imputation of the first sin should precede.

That he was his fellow-soldier in studies Placeus remembers not without pleasure, and he recognizes the remains of old friendship in those praises with which he sees himself adorned by him though least worthy: yet he would have wished that the most distinguished man, writing against the Jesuit, had not mentioned this controversy, if he thinks there is any between us, and he would not want to be packed by a friend into the same bundle, as it were, with Curcellaeus, from whom he vehemently differs. Hereafter, as I hope, the most learned man will think he should affirm that Placeus was neither condemned by the National Synod, nor does he entirely reject the imputation of Adam's first sin. For I do not think he will judge that God's glory and the church's edification demand that he be held for condemned by all. But as to what he says, that imputation and corruption walk with equal step — if he understood consequent imputation, he would not have me resisting; but since he seems to understand antecedent, I cannot assent to him. For that imputation is in no way, neither by Scripture nor by reason, repugnant to Scripture and reason; but this corruption can most certainly be proved by many testimonies of Scripture, by many reasons, and even by experience itself.

Having prefaced such things, the most distinguished man subjoins these few arguments in very brief words, to which we shall also reply most briefly.