Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §11

Cap. IV: was Placeus condemned? Both imputations cannot stand; Decree determination

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

It is asked now whether his judgment was condemned by the Synod's Decree. If it was condemned, it was condemned either because he does not admit both those imputations jointly, or because he rejects immediate or antecedent imputation. The first cannot be said. For they cannot be admitted jointly without involving a contradiction. For whoever says that Adam's first actual sin is imputed to his posterity immediately denies that it is imputed mediately: for immediately means the same as not mediately. To be imputed immediately, and to be imputed not through the mediation of corruption, are plainly the same. Whoever, therefore, would affirm that that first sin is imputed at once immediately and mediately would at once both deny and affirm that it is imputed through corruption — and would so involve himself in contradiction. That, without doubt, the Synod did not wish to require of us. I pass over in silence that it is not agreeable to equity that the same numerical sin be imputed twice to the same person — once before hereditary corruption, and again after that corruption. One imputation certainly suffices. Since, therefore, those two imputations cannot be retained together, and one must be chosen with the other repudiated, either the Synod left in doubt which it understood — the mediate or the immediate — or it did not leave that in doubt. If the former: it also left in doubt whether it condemned Placeus's judgment by its Decree, or not. So it is fitting that its readers suspend their judgment concerning Placeus, and not think him more condemned than uncondemned. But if there is something in the Decree that determines the imputation: if the doctrine of those who deny mediate imputation is condemned, Placeus's doctrine is not condemned — for he acknowledges mediate imputation. If the doctrine of those who deny immediate imputation is condemned, Placeus's doctrine is indeed condemned — but it is not condemned alone, for with it the doctrine of the Apostle Paul himself, and of men of the greatest name, would be condemned.

Latin

Quaeritur nunc an fuerit eius sententia Synodi Decreto damnata? Si damnata est, ideo damnata est, vel quia utramque illam imputationem coniunctim non admittit, vel quia imputationem immediatam seu antecedentem reicit. Primum dici non potest. Coniunctim enim admitti non possunt absque contradictionis implicatione. Nam qui dicit primum peccatum actuale Adami eius posteris imputari immediate, is negat imputari mediate: idem enim immediate significat ac non mediate. Imputari igitur immediate, et imputari non mediante corruptione, idem plane sunt. Qui igitur affirmaret simul imputari primum illud peccatum immediate et mediate, is simul et negaret mediante corruptione imputari et affirmaret, seseque adeo contradictione implicaret. Id quod sine dubio a nobis exigere Synodus noluit. Taceo non esse aequitati consentaneum, ut idem numero peccatum eidem bis imputetur, semel ante corruptionem haereditariam, et iterum post illam corruptionem. Una certe imputatio sufficit. Quandoquidem igitur ambae illae imputationes simul retineri nequeunt, alteraque eligenda est repudiata altera, vel Synodus in dubio reliquit quam intellexerit, mediatam an immediatam; vel id non reliquit in dubio. Si prius: etiam in dubio reliquit, utrum Placei sententiam Decreto suo condemnaverit, necne. Quare decet illius Lectores suum de Placeo iudicium suspendere, neque eum magis damnatum, quam indemnatum, putare. Sin est aliquid in Decreto quod imputationem determinet. Si damnatur eorum doctrina qui negant imputationem mediatam, non damnatur Placei doctrina: is enim imputationem mediatam agnoscit. Si damnatur eorum doctrina qui negant imputationem immediatam, damnatur quidem Placei doctrina — sed non damnatur sola, damnaretur enim cum ea ipsis Apostoli Pauli doctrina, et virorum maximi nominis.

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.