FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §8

Cap. III: third necessary argument — Decree wording; Garissoles dedicatory

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

A third argument is supplied to us by the Synod's condemning judgment: The Synod condemns doctrine of this kind insofar as it so restricts the nature of original sin to the hereditary corruption of Adam's posterity that it excludes the imputation of that first sin by which Adam fell. By those words the Synod does not simply condemn those who restrict the nature of original sin to hereditary corruption; it condemns those who so restrict it that they exclude the imputation of that first sin by which Adam fell. Yet Placeus never so restricted the nature of original sin to that corruption that he excluded the imputation of that first sin by which Adam fell. Placeus, therefore, is not condemned by the Synod's judgment.

This is confirmed by the words in which the distinguished D. Garissolius, in his dedicatory letter to the presidents of the churches and academies of Zurich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, expressed the Synod's judgment on page 13. He says the Synod's decree was made whereby the judgment of those is condemned who so set the account of original sin in native corruption alone that they acknowledge no imputation of Adam's first disobedience. Yet Placeus does not so constitute the account of original sin in native corruption alone that he acknowledges no imputation of Adam's first disobedience: for he acknowledges some. Since, therefore, to acknowledge none and to acknowledge some are contradictorily opposed, it is plain that by that Synod decree Placeus's judgment is not condemned.

Latin

Tertium argumentum nobis suppeditat Synodi sententia damnatoria: Damnat Synodus doctrinam eiusmodi, quatenus peccati originalis naturam ad corruptionem hereditariam posterorum Adae ita restringit, ut imputationem excludat primi illius peccati quo lapsus est Adam. Illis enim verbis non damnat Synodus simpliciter eos, qui peccati originalis naturam ad corruptionem hereditariam restringunt; sed qui ita restringunt ut excludant imputationem primi illius peccati quo lapsus est Adam. Atqui Placeus nunquam peccati originalis naturam ad illam corruptionem ita restrinxit, ut imputationem excluderet primi illius peccati quo lapsus est Adam. Placeus igitur non est Synodi sententia damnatus. Hoc confirmant verba quibus Clar. D. Garissolius in Epistola sua dedicatoria ad Ecclesiarum et Academiarum Tigurinae, Bernensis, Basileensis, Scaphusianae praesides sententiam Synodi expressit pag. 13. ait enim Synodi consultum factum esse, quo eorum sententia condemnatur, qui rationem originalis peccati in sola nativa corruptione ita constituunt, ut nullam primae Adami inobedientiae imputationem agnoscant. Atqui Placeus rationem originalis peccati in sola nativa corruptione non ita constituit, ut nullam primae Adami inobedientiae imputationem agnoscat: agnoscit enim aliquam. Cum igitur nullam agnoscere, et aliquam agnoscere, contradictorie opponantur, perspicuum est eo Synodi consulto Placei sententiam non esse damnatam.

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.