Cap. VII: Rom. 5 peccati nomine; justice-parallel syllogism; Garissoles confesses consequent

From this D. Garissoles seizes an occasion of inveighing against those who contend that by the name of sin in Romans 5:12–13 not Adam's actual sin itself is to be understood, but rather and only the internal corruption inhering in us by propagation of the flesh from Adam. Without doubt he did not want to tax Placeus, forgetful that before this last century, and at the end of the former, this was the common exposition of all, or at least nearly all, who were not Pelagians or Pighians. Meanwhile I do not deny that by the name of fall and of disobedience that first actual sin of Adam also ought to be understood.

But I do not know what argument D. Garissoles subjoins. In whatever way, he says, the Apostle speaks of Christ's righteousness, so also of Adam's sin. But properly he speaks only of that righteousness which is Christ's formally and subjectively, but ours relatively and by imputation. Therefore also properly he speaks only of that sin of Adam which inhered in Adam, but by imputation becomes ours. I pass over a double fault of this syllogism in form — one, that to an affirming major it subsumes a negating in the first figure; another, that in the Major the mode of speaking is treated, but in the minor the thing itself, that is, a certain righteousness: for either could easily be corrected. I also pass over that the Apostle did not mention the righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) of Christ, but the δικαίωμα, the ὑπακοή of the one. This I observe: this argument falls back upon its own author, and that with a doubled blow. For first, the righteousness which was in Christ formally and subjectively was habitual righteousness; for actions are not formally and subjectively in the agent, but from the agent. Whence it follows likewise that the Apostle speaks of Adam's habitual sin: which yet in this very place D. Garissoles denies. Next, by Christ's righteousness D. Garissoles understands a righteousness which embraces the universal obedience of Christ's whole life. Therefore one must also understand by Adam's sin all the disobedience of his whole life. Which all confess to be false, and D. Garissoles himself cries out. But if by Christ's righteousness he wanted only one singular obedience of Christ to be understood, opposed to only one singular sin of Adam, Placeus will indeed acknowledge that the names παράπτωμα and παρακοή in verses 18 and 19 are so taken by the Apostle. But he will deny that thence follows either the immediate imputation of Adam's actual disobedience, or that the Apostle by ἡ ἁμαρτία in verses 12–13 did not designate inhering vice: and nevertheless he will show the vanity of this argumentation of D. Garissoles thus: For he will subsume, And yet the Apostle properly does not speak of Christ's first righteousness or obedience, but of the last. Therefore also properly he does not speak of Adam's first sin, but of the last. What is falser than that conclusion? Yet what stands in the way why it should not seem to be gathered equally rightly and evidently as that of D. Garissoles? Further, what he says — that Christ's righteousness becomes ours by imputation — if it is true, is true for this reason, that that imputation is a gracious donation of it. For Christ's righteousness becomes ours, properly speaking, by the gift of God and of Christ, and by our acceptance through faith; in which way certainly Adam's sin cannot become ours. Which difference the Apostle everywhere inculcates, opposing to the παράπτωμα and κρίμα the χάρισμα, the δωρεά, the δώρημα to the παράβασις, righteousness to sin, and the like. What he subjoins — that the sin which inhered in Adam becomes ours by imputation — seems to me vehemently absurd. For thence it follows that that sin is not imputed to us because it is ours, but on the contrary is ours because it is imputed to us; and so that imputation is the cause why we are sinners and guilty, just as the donation and imputation of Christ's righteousness is the cause why we are just. How foreign that is from the equity of God the judge (for imputation is a judicial action), no pious person fails to see. For the rest, read if you please Calvin's commentary on verse 17. Here also D. Garissoles confesses that imputation follows native corruption — which confessed, what imputation can he prove except the consequent? Imputation, he says, is necessarily joined with native corruption; nay, it follows it.