On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §26

Cap. VII: Garissoles Arg. II — Adam as type/head; Placeus retorsion

This second argument, he says, is concluded most rightly and most evidently: Adam is the type of Christ, and Adam and Christ are heads of the human race in contrary effects. And yet by the imputation of Adam's sin we all are sinners and guilty. Therefore also by the imputation of Christ's righteousness we all are justified, or are constituted just before God. How indeed is that concluded most rightly and most evidently, when there are in the argument six or seven terms? And how did the Apostle want to conclude this, who in this whole chapter mentions neither the imputation of Adam's sin nor the imputation of Christ's righteousness? And how, if the Apostle wanted this, did Calvin, Martyr, and others in their commentaries expound his mind and words, with no mention made either of the imputation of Adam's sin or of an argumentation of that kind? What of this — that that argument so little concludes most rightly and most evidently that it can even be turned back. For what is the consequence: Adam and Christ are heads of the human race in contrary effects. Therefore those contrary effects proceed from them in altogether the same mode? Does it not rather follow that, since the effects are contrary, they proceed from them in a contrary mode? which the thing itself also confirms. For from Adam we are born sinners naturally; from Christ we are just supernaturally; from him by justice, from this by grace; from him without our actual consent, from this through our actual consent; from him by natural propagation (for that, from which the Pelagian heresy was born, has been perpetually believed by the orthodox), from this in no way by such propagation. I pass over the other differences, of which some, as I said, the Apostle himself observed, some Calvin at verse 17 joined to those which the Apostle had observed. But grant that that argument of D. Garissoles concludes rightly: Placeus will concede that we all are sinners and guilty by consequent or mediate imputation of Adam's sin; he will deny by antecedent or immediate. What is easier than so to reply?

Latin

Alterum hoc, inquit, rectissime et evidentissime concluditur: Adamus est typus Christi, et sunt Adamus et Christus capita generis humani in contrariis effectis. Atqui Adamici peccati imputatione omnes sumus peccatores et rei. Ergo et iustitiae Christi imputatione omnes iustificamur, seu iusti constituimur apud Deum. Quomodo enim id rectissime et evidentissime concluditur, cum sint in argumento sex aut septem termini? Et quomodo hoc voluit concludere Apostolus, qui neque imputationis peccati Adamici, neque imputationis iustitiae Christi in toto hoc capite meminit? Et quomodo si hoc Apostolus voluit, Calvinus, Martyr, et alii in suis commentariis, eius mentem et verba exposuerunt, nulla, neque imputationis peccati Adami, neque eiusmodi argumentationis, facta mentione? Quid, quod istud argumentum, adeo non rectissime et evidentissime concludit, ut etiam possit retorqueri. Nam quae est consequentia, Adamus et Christus sunt capita generis humani in contrariis effectis. Ergo contraria ista effecta ab iis eodem prorsus modo procedunt? Annon potius sequitur, contraria cum sint effecta, illa ab iis contrario modo procedere? id quod etiam res ipsa confirmat. Nam ab Adamo nascimur peccatores naturaliter, a Christo sumus iusti supernaturaliter, ab illo ex iustitia, ab hoc ex gratia, ab illo sine actuali nostro consensu, ab hoc per actualem nostrum consensum, ab illo per propagationem naturalem, (id enim ex quo nata est haeresis Pelagiana perpetuo ab orthodoxis creditum fuit.) ab hoc nullo modo per eiusmodi propagationem. Mitto cetera discrimina, quorum quaedam, ut dixi, ipse Apostolus observavit, quaedam Calvinus ad vers. 17. iis, quae Apostolus observaverat, adiunxit. Sed fac argumentum illud D. Gar. recte concludere, concedet Placeus nos omnes Adamici peccati imputatione consequente seu mediata esse peccatores et reos, negabit antecedente seu immediata. Quid facilius quam ita respondere?

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.