FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §134

Cap. XI: Hunnius’s ἀτοπία; counterfeit Pelagians and the needless second sin

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

Setting aside those unhelpful witnesses, Garissoles turns to the Pelagians and marvels at Aegidius Hunnius's ἀτοπία — Hunnius's claim that the Pelagian view was that Adam's sin is imputed to posterity. He also marvels that a learned man (he means Placeus) 'hallucinated' the same way in a private letter. Those who first invented the immediate imputation of Adam's sin — note: immediate; Placeus has always rejected that alone, never the mediate — were Pelagians trying to dodge the anathemas aimed at Pelagius. They denied hereditary corruption, that is, original sin, and to dazzle the Church they gave that name to the guilt of Adam's first sin as imputed. Garissoles cries that this is false; yet he admits that anyone who makes the whole account of original sin nothing but the imputation of Adam's sin belongs with the Pelagians — not because they taught imputation, but because they denied corruption. That confirms Hunnius and Placeus more than it overturns them. They never pinned immediate imputation of the first sin on Pelagius himself or on every Pelagian, but only on those who were truly Pelagians and wanted not to look it — for if Pelagius had openly taught imputed Adam's sin, that dodge would have been useless. Seeing that deniers of original sin were counted heretics, they professed to believe original sin, but meant by it not propagated sin, as all the orthodox do, but Adam's actual sin imputed to everyone. Indeed those who press immediate imputation against Placeus cannot help sliding toward the Pelagians, as I have already noted more than once in Garissoles himself: once a propagated, inherent sin that is truly sin and enough to damn us is granted, what need is there of another sin imputed to us? Once mediate imputation of Adam's first actual sin is granted, what need of the immediate — and how can Scripture prove it?

Latin

His ergo missis sibi non faventibus accedit D. G. ad Pelagianos, & miratur Aegidii Hunnii ἀτοπίαν, pertendentis hanc fuisse Pelagianorum sententiam, Adami peccatum posteris imputari. Miratur etiam hallucinatum in eadem re virum doctum (Placeum designat) ita de hoc negotio in privata quadam Epistola loquentem. Qui primi immediatam (nota immediatam: hanc enim solam, minime vero mediatam, Placeus constanter improbavit) imputationem peccati Adae commenti sunt, ii Pelagiani fuerunt, qui hac ratione conati sunt anathematum adversus Pelagium vibratorum impetum declinare. Negarunt enim corruptionem haereditariam, id est, originale peccatum: & ad praestringendos Ecclesiae oculos, hoc nomine donaverunt reatum imputati primi Adae peccati. Hoc D. G. falsum esse clamat. Fatetur tamen eos qui totam rationem peccati originalis sola imputatione peccati Adae definierunt, Pelagianis accensendos esse: sed accensendos, non quia imputationem posuerint, sed quia corruptionem negaverint, &c. Id quod Aegidii Hunnii & Placei sententiam confirmat potius quam evertit. Non enim dogma de imputatione primi peccati immediata ipsi Pelagio aut omnibus Pelagianis ascripserunt: Sed illis duntaxat, qui cum essent revera Pelagiani, voluerunt non Pelagiani videri: quam ad rem inutile fuisset dogma de imputato Adae peccato, si id Pelagius aperte protulisset. Cum enim viderent, qui negarent peccatum originale pro haereticis haberi, professi sunt se peccatum originale credere: sed hoc nomine non peccatum propagatum, ut reliqui omnes orthodoxi, sed peccatum actuale Adami omnibus imputatum intelligebant. Certe illi ipsi, qui adversus Placeum imputationem immediatam urgent, imprudentes quidem, sed tamen evitare non possunt, quin Pelagianis accedant; uti jam in ipso D. Garissolio aliquoties observavi. Posito enim peccato propagato seu inhaerente, quod vere peccatum sit, ac nobis damnandis sufficiat, quid opus est alio peccato nobis imputato? posita imputatione primi Adae peccati actualis mediata, quid opus est immediata? & quomodo potest immediata ex Scriptura probari?

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.