FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §244

Man. Post. Cap. IV: PLAC — syllogism; limitatio; gratia

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

Placeus. Why call this the third reason when it is the fifth? I see no cause except that, having skipped the second and fourth, he still did not want to seem to have skipped any. I had backed this fifth argument's minor with four reasons; he takes up only the first two, so compressed—especially the first—that I scarcely know them. His two replies seem to shore the argument up more than tear it down.

The first explains why Adam was not damned—and so grants what confirmed my minor: he was not damned. My argument ran: If the law threatened Adam with death as privation of righteousness, Adam was punished as the law threatened. But he was not. Therefore the Law did not threaten him with that death. What does Garissoles say to the major? Deny? Distinguish? Limit? Nothing at all—so he concedes it.

One might limit: besides that privation the law also threatened bodily and eternal death, so Adam would have been partly punished (by spiritual death) and partly not (by bodily and eternal). The limit does not hurt the argument. He would still have been hit by some punishment properly so called—judicial, and the greatest—which the Law threatened. That is false. God granted him grace for the sin. The one whose sin is remitted, not imputed, who is justified from sin, is not punished. Partial punishment would mean partial remission and partial justification—an imperfect justification no evangelical would own. So, reader, this first reply shakes neither major nor minor. Let him go on.

Latin

PLAC. Cur hanc rationem, cum sit quinta, tertiam vocet, causam nullam video, nisi quia, cum duas praeterierit, secundam & quartam, videri tamen noluit ullam praetermisisse. Quatuor etiam rationibus minorem hujus argumenti quinti confirmaveram: ex quibus solas priores duas sibi objicit, sed ita contractas, praesertim primam, ut vix eam agnoscam. Adhibet autem responsiones duas, quibus argumentum firmare potius videtur, quam infirmare. Priore rationem reddit, cur Adamus non fuerit damnatus. Concedit igitur, (quae minoris argumenti mei confirmatio erat) eum non fuisse damnatum. Sic enim se habebat argumentum meum; Si lex Adamo mortem sitam in privatione justitiae comminabatur, Adamus secundum legis comminationem punitus est. Atqui Adamus secundum legis comminationem punitus non est. Ergo Lex non comminabatur Adamo mortem sitam in privatione justitiae. Quid respondet Vir Doctus ad Majorem? Num eam negat? Num distinguit? Num ei limitationem adhibet? Nihil prorsus respondet. Eam igitur concedit. Ita videtur. Potest tamen limitari: cum enim praeter illam privationem, etiam corporis & aeternam mortem lex minaretur, Adamus secundum legis comminationem partim punitus fuisset, partim non fuisset: Punitus fuisset illa privatione seu morte spirituali, non fuisset punitus morte corporis & aeterna. Sed haec limitatio argumento nihil nocet. Punitus enim saltem fuisset poena aliqua proprie dicta, seu judiciaria quam Lex comminabatur, & quidem poena maxima. Id autem est falsum. Fecit enim ei Deus gratiam peccati. Non punitur autem cui peccatum remittitur, cui peccatum non imputatur, qui justificatus est a peccato. Nam si partim puniretur, partim non puniretur, etiam ei partim peccatum remitteretur, partim non remitteretur, & partim justificaretur, partim non justificaretur; imperfectaque esset justificatio, id quod Evangelicorum nemo dixerit. Cum tale sit argumentum meum, vides, lector, hanc priorem Viri Docti responsionem illius neque majorem, neque minorem labefactare. Pergat igitur.

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.