On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §168

Man. Post. Cap. II §III: Garissoles — Pontificiorum ludification analogy (threefold justitia Christi)

Garissoles. But let those who parade such care in explaining the Question say whether they will not count it a mockery and a piece of prestidigitation if one of those new Pontifical doctors—who wish to be thought to tour provinces and cities in the zeal of pacification—comes on blandly and, in a weighty cause (say the business of justification), professes agreement with the Evangelicals: that he willingly embraces justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ our Lord, provided he may explain the matter by a distinction. For Christ's righteousness, he would say, can be taken in several ways. (1) For those acts most exact to the rule of God's law, by which Christ living and dying rendered fullest obedience to his Father's commands. (2) For that habitual, inhering righteousness by which Christ's soul shone most splendidly. (3) For the inward, habitual righteousness that is subjectively in each of the faithful, yet may rightly be called Christ's, because it flows into us from Christ and Christ's Spirit as its author. In this last sense, then, he would acknowledge, in the justification controversy, the imputation of Christ's righteousness; but if we take Christ's righteousness in the first and second senses, he would acknowledge no such imputation and reject it as absurd. A consensus in this business so explained—no one fails to complain—is a mockery rather than a consensus. And so on.

Latin

GAR. Dicant vero, qui eam prae se ferunt in explicanda Quaestione diligentiam, annon ludificationi deputaturi sint, et praestigiarum loco habituri, si quis ex Novis illis Pontificiorum Doctoribus, qui pacificationis studio provincias et urbes obire credi volunt, blandulus accedat, et in causa momentosa, justificationis puta negocio, consensum cum Evangelicis profiteatur: se nimirum haud invito animo doctrinam amplecti de justificatione per imputatam Christi Domini nostri justitiam, dummodo distinctione adhibita rem explicare liceat; Quia scilicet justitia Christi variis modis accipi potest. 1. Pro actionibus illis ad legis divinae regulam exactissimis, quibus Christus et vivens et moriens plenissimum Patris sui mandatis obsequium praestitit. 2. Pro habituali illa et inhaerente justitia, qua Christi anima splendidissime enituit. 3. Pro justitia interna et habituali, qua unicuique fidelium subjective inest, sed quae justitia Christi merito dici possit, quoniam a Christo, Christique Spiritu, tanquam autore, in nos defluit. Hoc ergo ultimo sensu, agnoscere se, in controversia justificationis, imputationem justitiae Christi: at vero si prima et secunda significatione Christi justitiam accipiamus, se justitiae Christi imputationem nullam agnoscere, sed tanquam absurdam rejicere. Consensum certe in hoc negocio ita explicatum, nemo est, qui non conqueratur Ludibrium esse, potius quam consensum. &c.

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.