FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §5

Third and fourth probable arguments: unread theses; bare consensus without Scripture

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

But let us go on, and add a third argument. If Placeus's Theses had been accused before the National Synod, should they not have been laid before that Synod, read in its hearing, and all the reasons by which Placeus — briefly, to be sure, but still, as he thinks, invincibly — proved his opinion weighed one by one and carefully? Yet it is entirely certain that was not done in that Synod. So it is not likely that those theses were accused, or at least so accused that they were condemned. Why, after all, would theses have been condemned that vigorously attacked — or rather stormed — the common adversaries, Socinus, Pelagius, and Pighius, both separately in the first fifteen theses and jointly in those that follow?

A fourth argument also comes to hand. For if the Synod had meant to condemn Placeus's opinion by that Decree of theirs, would it — with the prudence it had — have been content to set against the Scripture texts and arguments (contemptible neither in number nor in strength) by which he had confirmed his opinion a bare consensus of Protestants, as if forgetful of Article V of the Confession of Faith which it had itself lately approved by its own vote, and to lay that consensus under its Decree as a rule of faith and a foundation? That, to me at least, is certainly not likely.

Nor does it seem likely to me that a most prudent Synod, without consulting the provincial synods, would have wished to settle in a single session a weighty controversy never before agitated or decided in any other synod. Experience has taught that to be dangerous; and it is also foreign to the custom of national synods, which have often judged it unsafe to pronounce even on matters of far less moment unless all the provinces had first been consulted — so careful are they not to abuse their power, or to use it without circumspection to any weak person's scandal. Yet that is what it did, if it condemned Placeus's judgment by that decree. For it neither consulted the provinces, and the business was finished in one Session, and that imputation of Adam's sin which Placeus had rejected in his theses (for he had not rejected every imputation) had never been established by any synod or by any public authority. Who, then, would believe that a most wise Synod would have wished to define such an imputation with so much haste, and to bind every provincial synod, every colloquy, every pastor and professor, and every candidate for the sacred ministry to believe and teach it, under threat of all censures?

Latin

Sed pergamus, tertiumque addamus argumentum. Nonne Theses Placei, si accusatae apud Synodum Nationalem fuissent, ei Synodo exhiberi, eaque audiente legi, et rationes omnes quibus opinionem suam Placeus brevissime quidem, sed tamen, ut ipse putat, invicte probavit, sigillatim et diligenter expendi debuissent? Atqui id in ea Synodo factum non esse certissimum est. Non sit igitur verisimile, fuisse, aut accusatas illas theses, aut saltem ita accusatas ut sint damnatae. Enimvero cur damnatae fuissent Theses quae fortiter communes adversarios oppugnabant, vel expugnabant potius, Socinum, Pelagium, Pighium, cum separatim thesibus primis quindecim, tum coniunctim sequentibus? Succurrit etiam argumentum quartum. Nam si Synodus damnare Placei opinionem suo illo Decreto voluisset, num illa, qua erat prudentia, locis Scripturae et argumentis, seu numerum, seu robur spectes haudquaquam contemnendis, quibus ille suam opinionem confirmaverat, contenta fuisset nudum Protestantium consensum, quasi oblita Art. V. Confessionis fidei, quam suo calculo ipsa recens comprobaverat, opponere, et tanquam regulam fidei ac fundamentum suo illi Decreto substernere? Hoc mihi quidem certe non sit verisimile. Sed neque mihi etiam verisimile videtur, Synodum prudentissimam, inconsultis Synodis Provincialibus una sessione definire voluisse controversiam momentoasam, in nulla unquam alia Synodo antea agitatam aut decisam. Id enim cum experientia periculosum esse docuit, tum abhorret a consuetudine Synodorum nationalium, quae de rebus longe minoris momenti pronunciare tutum saepe non censuerunt, nisi consultis prius omnibus provinciis: adeo vereri solent, ne vel potestate sua abutantur, vel ea cum cuiusquam infirmi scandalo minus circumspecte utantur. Attamen id fecit, si Placei sententiam suo illo decreto damnavit. Nam neque provincias consuluit, et una Sessione res confecta est, et ea peccati Adamici imputatio, quam Placeus thesibus suis reiecerat (non enim omnem reiecerat) nulla unquam Synodo, nulla unquam publica autoritate fuerat firmata. Quis igitur credat sapientissimam Synodum talem imputationem tanta cum festinatione definire voluisse, atque ad eam credendam et docendam omnes Synodos Provinciales, omnia colloquia, omnes Pastores et Professores, omnes sacri Ministerii candidatos, omnium censurarum metu inciso obligare?

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.