Fathers

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §159

Man. Post. Cap. II Status Questionis: poenae nomen ambiguous — hereditary corruption as penalty?

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

Chapter II. The state of the question. I come now to the state of the question. You would not have framed it awkwardly if, in the word penalty that you brought into it, you had either left out the ambiguity or taken it away. For by penalty you either meant to include hereditary corruption, or you did not. If you did not, you should have said so—otherwise the reader will go wrong—since in this first chapter you hint, in the second you cry out, and elsewhere you drum into others, that that corruption is the penalty of the first sin. If you meant, or thought, that that corruption is the first sin's penalty in the proper sense, not only as it was in Adam himself but also as it is in us—or not—then, if the former, I refuse the question. It assumes as settled among us what I refuted in my theses and what is still under dispute: that hereditary corruption is, properly and strictly, the penalty of the first sin not only as it was in Adam but also as it is present in us by propagation. If you meant a penalty, but not properly so called, nor in the strict sense of the word—at least as it is in us—you ought to have explained your mind; for from many places in this treatise of yours it is plain that you take that corruption to be a penalty in the strictest and most proper sense.

Latin

CAP. II. Status Questionis. Venio nunc ad statum questionis. Eum non incommode constituisses si poenae nomini, quod in eam introduxisti, ambiguitatem vel non inclusisses, vel sustulisses. Enimvero poenae nomine corruptionem haereditariam complecti vel voluisti, vel noluisti. Si noluisti: debuisti id significare, alioqui erraturo lectori, quippe cum hoc primo capite innuas, et secundo clames, et aliis inculces, corruptionem illam poenam esse primi peccati. Si voluisti, vel putasti corruptionem illam esse poenam proprie dictam primi peccati, non solum quatenus in ipso Adamo fuit, sed etiam quatenus inest in nobis; vel non. Si prius, quaestionem non admitto: Praesupponit enim ut certum, ut inter nos confessum, id quod ego thesibus meis refutavi, quodque versatur in quaestione, nimirum corruptionem haereditariam esse, proprie et stricte loquendo, poenam primi peccati, non solum quatenus fuit in Adamo sed etiam quatenus nobis propagata inest. Si poenam quidem esse voluisti, sed non proprie dictam, nec stricta hujus vocabuli significatione, saltem quatenus est in nobis, decuit te mentem tuam explicare, quoniam apparet ex multis hujus tui tractatus locis te corruptionem illam putare poenam esse sensu strictissimo, maximeque proprio.

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.