Cap. VII: Resp. 3 — Apostolic wisdom, not prescribed formulas; Pelagius objection

Response 3. It seems scarcely bearable that it is said: if Paul had wished to teach imputation, he ought rather to have said in whichhichhich than on whichichich. For who are we who dare prescribe to the Apostle a manner of speaking and formulas — especially when in and on so frequently have the same sense and signification? Gently, I ask: without doubt the author of that reason recoils vehemently from arrogance of this kindindind. He does not prescribe to the Apostle a manner of speaking and formulas; he draws an argument from his wisdom and prudence, which is established to have been the highest. It was asked what the Apostle wished to signify by the words on whichichich πάντες ἥμαρτον (Romans 5:12). Some say he wished to signify that Adam's first actual sin was imputed to all men, and that immediately. Since therefore they attribute this mind to the Apostle — I will not say they prescribe it, but because it so pleases them — and toward that mind they bend a little his words, less accommodating as they are, affirming that on is put for in with no reason given.e objects that this less befits Apostolic wisdom. For since a doctrine of this kind is very hard, and abhorrent from common sense, and is not taught elsewhere in Scripture, it was fitting that at least in this one place it be taught openly and in express words — or at least in those words which, though falsely, are nevertheless held as express by those who dissent from us in this cause. If at least he had said in whichhichhich, there would have been no need to recur to an enallage of the preposition ἐπί put for ἐν, and the signification of the words in whichhichhich would have been less ambiguous: for much more rarely than on whichichich do they signify "in that," "inasmuch as," and so on. Since therefore the Apostle deliberately preferred to say on whichichich rather than in whichhichhich, and as much as could be done removed them from those antecedents, and by several things interposed separated the noun ἀνθρώπου, and so hindered the relative ᾧ from being referred to it as antecedent — why without necessity, without reason, do we prefer to force some violence upon his words and upon the collocation of the words, so that they seem somehow to say what cannot be gathered from them, rather than, retaining the propriety of the words on whichichich and the Apostolic situ of the clauses, admit that sense of his words which in itself no one but a Pelagian can deny to be true? But what, he says, will hinder Pelagius or Socinus from objecting by the same reason: if Scripture had wished to teach either that sin is propagated by generation, or that Christ is Mediator by merit and satisfaction, it would have expressed it, or ought to have expressed it, in clear and perspicuous words, since the matter is hard and not enough accommodated to the common sense of men? Altogether nothing will hinder the followers of Pelagius and Socinus from being able to object this if they wish; but nothing will hinder us either from answering those who object — not what D. Garissoles wants, that it is not ours to prescribe to God manners and modes of speaking (for this, when God's mind and sentence is turned in the question, can seem sophistic); but what the fact is: that it neither abhors in any way from the sense of conscience, and is expressed in Scripture in words so express and clear that, unless great force is brought upon them, they cannot be twisted into another sense.