On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §109

Cap. X: Garissoles (1) — propagation does not force imputation; Placeus burden of proof

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

D. Garissoles presses on. Why do I say presses on? I answer, he says — that is, he sets a reply against a reply. But what does he answer? Reply, he says, 1. Even if the propagation of sin and its transmission by natural generation is to be granted, as it most certainly is, it is not therefore fitting that imputation be denied or removed; nor can any legitimate consequence be drawn from affirming the one to denying the other. Rather both are to be joined in the cause of original sin, as it is certain our theologians commonly observe. But I say: our part now is to answer, his to prove. And we lay down what is confessed: that Adam's sin is propagated by natural generation. Whether an imputation of Adamite sin precedes that propagation or not — that itself is what is in controversy between us, and what he seemed to have undertaken to prove. Now, in place of proof, he is content to say that from affirming the one there is no consequence to denying the other. Grant that it is so: has he thereby established that imputation? Let him therefore prove that natural propagation is not enough unless imputation precedes it; otherwise he is beating the air. And that is what he means to prove.

Latin

Instat D. Garissolius. Quid dico instat? Respondeo, inquit, nempe responsioni responsionem opponit. Sed quid tamen respondet? Resp. inquit, 1. Non si propagatio peccati & ejus transmissio per generationem naturalem concedenda est, ut est certissima, propterea imputationem negari, aut tolli consentaneum est; neque enim ab illius positione ad hujus negationem consequentia ulla legitima duci potest, utraque potius in causa peccati originalis conjungenda est, sicut a nostris Theologis communiter observari certum est. Atqui, inquam, nostrae, nunc quidem, partes sunt respondere, ejus probare. Ponimus autem, id quod est in confesso, propagari peccatum Adami per generationem naturalem. An eam antecedat imputatio peccati Adamici, necne, id ipsum est quod inter nos controversitur, quodque probandum suscepisse videbatur. Nunc probationis loco contentus est dicere ab illius positione ad hujus negationem nullam esse consequentiam. Fac ita esse, an propterea imputationem illam astruxit? probet igitur non sufficere propagationem naturalem, nisi eam antecedat imputatio, alioquin aerem diverberat. Atque hoc est quod intendit probare.

About this text

Josue de la Place (Placeus) — Capita I–XIV partial of De imputatione primi peccati Adami from the 1661 Saumur Latin, through Man. Post. Caput X (GAR.1–3 Rom. 5.13 tip) / before PLAC on reatus-only. Honest partial; Cap. X Rom. 5:14+ / ~494 pp Disputatio remain.

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.