FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §25

Cap. VII: Garissoles Arg. I — Placeus Resp. 2–3; comparison forces consequent only

Reply 2. Grant that the Syllogism is free of fault: its conclusion does not hurt Placeus. For he freely grants the imputation of Adam's first sin, provided the consequent or mediate be understood — which that very comparison between Christ and Adam demands to be understood, not the antecedent or immediate. For the imputation of Christ's righteousness received by faith follows our consent, our faith, and is made by that mediating. It is therefore fitting that the imputation of Adam's first sin answering to it should follow some consent of ours — if not an act, at least a habit; if not actual, at least habitual — and be made by that mediating.

Reply 3. To ascribe to the Apostle that conclusion of D. Garissoles which cannot be drawn from that comparison unless the constant doctrine of all the Fathers and of all the Orthodox Churches is overturned. For he wants this to be the Apostle's conclusion: Therefore the righteousness of the second Adam, who is Christ, descends to us not by propagation but by imputation. Which conclusion cannot follow except from this antecedent: Adam's sin descends to us not by propagation but by imputation. For if you posit that Adam's sin descends to us partly by propagation, partly by imputation, by what consequence will you thence make out that Christ's righteousness descends not by propagation but by imputation? Certainly you must likewise deny in the antecedent the propagation of Adam's sin, which all both Fathers and Protestants have constantly taught. What of this — that even with that false and erroneous antecedent posited, that conclusion cannot follow except by force of that greater proposition which he suppressed: Whatever way Adam's sin reaches us, Christ's righteousness reaches us in the same way, and no other. But now if that proposition is understood so universally, it is openly false. For Adam's sin descends into us not from grace but from justice; naturally, not supernaturally; with us not actually consenting, etc. Does Christ's righteousness descend to us in the same way? But if it is understood particularly, so that there is likeness in a certain mode, not in every, the consequence will be vicious, as from a particular major in the first figure. This argumentation therefore both goes against the Church's doctrine and makes the Apostle reason badly. Which things all fell from the learned man, and that in his very first argument — truly to be lamented — as also that which follows.

Latin

Resp. 2. Ut ponamus vitio carere Syllogismum, eius conclusionem non obesse Placeo. Concedit enim ultro primi Adae peccati imputationem, modo consequens seu mediata intelligatur, quam intelligi, non autem antecedentem seu immediatam, illa ipsa Christum inter et Adamum comparatio flagitat. Nam imputatio iustitiae Christi fide perceptae, nostrum consensum, nostram fidem consequitur, eaque mediante fit. Consentaneum est igitur, ut imputatio primi Adae peccati ei respondens, aliquem nostrum, si non actum, saltem habitum, si non actualem, saltem habitualem consensum sequatur, eoque mediante fiat. Resp. 3. eam D. Gar. conclusionem adscribere Apostolo, quae ex illa comparatione deduci non potest, nisi eversa constante omnium Patrum, omniumque Ecclesiarum Orthodoxarum doctrina. Vult enim hanc esse conclusionem Apostoli. Ergo iustitia secundi Adami, qui Christus est, non propagatione, sed imputatione ad nos descendit. Quae conclusio sequi non potest nisi ex hoc antecedente, Peccatum Adami non propagatione, sed imputatione ad nos descendit. Nam si ponas peccatum Adami partim propagatione, partim imputatione ad nos descendere, qua consequentia inde conficies, iustitiam Christi non propagatione, sed imputatione descendere? Oportet certe similiter in antecedente propagationem peccati Adae negare, quam omnes et Patres et Protestantes constanter docuerunt. Quid, quod etiam posito isto falso et erroneo antecedente, consequi non potest illa conclusio, nisi vi maioris istius propositionis quam subticuit, Quomodo peccatum Adami ad nos descendit, eodem, et non alio, descendit ad nos Christi iustitia. Iam autem ista propositio si ita universaliter intelligitur, aperte falsa est. Descendit enim in nos peccatum Adami non ex gratia, sed ex iustitia; naturaliter, non supernaturaliter; nobis actu non consentientibus etc. Eodemne modo descendit ad nos Christi iustitia? Sin autem intelligitur particulariter, ut sit similitudo in quodam modo, non in omni, vitiosa erit consequentia, ut pote ex maiore particulari in prima figura. It ergo et contra Ecclesiae doctrinam haec argumentatio, et Apostolum facit male ratiocinantem. Quae omnia viro docto excidisse, et quidem in ipso primo eius argumento, dolendum profecto est, ut et illud quod sequitur.

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.