On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §9

Cap. III close: Montauban extract; National Synod testimony; censures; Denique

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

The same is also sounded by the words of the Extract from the acts of the Synod of Montauban held in the month of October in the year 1645, which D. Garissolius prefixed to his book. The Decree of the National Synod of Charenton was read, whereby the doctrine of those is condemned who teach that Adam's first sin is in no way imputed to posterity. Yet Placeus does not teach that Adam's first sin is in no way imputed to posterity. On the contrary, he teaches that it is imputed — namely by mediate or consequent imputation, which the same Lord Garissolius confesses that he himself acknowledges. Placeus's doctrine, therefore, is not condemned by that Decree.

This very point can be gathered from the National Synod's own testimony. For it testifies that all Protestant churches have acknowledged both that corruption and this imputation descending upon all Adam's posterity. That is truly said of that imputation of Adam's first disobedience which Placeus believes and teaches; of that which he denies, it is not. For from where can the judgment of the Protestant churches be known, if not from the confessions of faith, or from synodical decrees, or from the books of those whose labors God used to reform his Church? Yet from such Confessions, Decrees, and books no imputation universally acknowledged can be gathered except that one which Placeus acknowledges. Those, therefore, who deny that one — not Placeus — the Synod condemns.

Besides, the Synod judges that all pastors and professors who deny this imputation of which it speaks are to be subjected to all censures — whereby it signifies that it understands such an imputation to be a weighty dogma of religion, and necessary to be believed. That cannot truly be said of the imputation Placeus denies, but only of that which he proves and confesses.

Finally, the Synod not obscurely hints that that imputation of Adam's first sin which it wants acknowledged is so openly true that it does not need proof. For I judge it belongs to that point that the Synod thought it needed to be confirmed by no Scripture testimony and by no reason. That fits the imputation Placeus acknowledges; the one he denies, in no way. For as the former seems necessarily and evidently true, so the latter, to one who inspects carefully, does not even appear probable.

Latin

Idem etiam sonant verba Exscripti ex actis Synodi Montalbani habitae Octobri mense Ann. 1645. quod D. Garissolius libro suo praemisit. Perlectum est Decretum Synodi Nationalis Carentonensis, quo eorum doctrina damnatur, qui primum Adae peccatum docent posteris nequaquam imputari. Atqui Placeus non docet primum Adae peccatum posteris nequaquam imputari. Immo contra docet imputari, imputatione nimirum mediata seu consequente, quam ipse Dominus Garissolius fatetur se agnoscere. Doctrina igitur Placei non est eo Decreto damnata. Hoc ipsum ex Synodi Nationalis testimonio colligi potest. Testatur enim omnes Ecclesias Protestantes et corruptionem illam, et imputationem hanc in omnes Adami posteros descendentem agnovisse. Id quod de illa imputatione primae Adami inobedientiae quam Placeus credit et docet, vere dicitur: de illa vero quam negat, non item. Unde enim sciri potest Ecclesiarum Protestantium sententia, nisi aut ex fidei confessionibus, aut ex decretis Synodicis, aut ex eorum libris quorum opera Deus usus est ad reformandam Ecclesiam suam? Atqui ex eiusmodi Confessionibus, Decretis, et libris nulla imputatio universaliter agnita colligi potest praeter eam unam, quam Placeus agnoscit. Hanc igitur unam qui negant, eos, non autem Placeum, Synodus damnat. Praeterea Synodus omnes Pastores et Professores Imputationem hanc de qua loquitur negantes omnibus censuris subiiciendos censet, quo significat se talem imputationem intelligere, quae sit dogma religionis momentosum, et creditu necessarium. Id quod de imputatione quam Placeus negat vere dici non potest, sed de ea tantum quam ille probat et confitetur. Denique Synodus non obscure innuit, illam imputationem primi Adae peccati, quam vult agnosci, tam aperte veram esse, ut probatione non egeat. Eo enim pertinere arbitror, quod eam nullo Scripturae testimonio, nulla ratione firmandam sibi censuit. Id autem in illam imputationem, quam Placeus agnoscit, competit; in eam vero quam negat, nullo modo. Quam enim illa necessario et evidenter vera videtur, tam ista diligenter inspicienti ne probabilis quidem apparet.

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.