On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §172

Man. Post. Cap. II §XIV: Placeus — bile reply; distinction not false; light vs darkness

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

Placeus: I am nearly sure this distinction of Adam's first sin stirred the learned man's bile: he attacks and worries it from every side. What does he mean to prove? That it was unnecessary. Grant that; so long as it is not false, not absurd, and not harmful to my cause, I see no reason why it should be so fiercely chased. "But it distinguishes and confuses the reader." It distinguishes, perhaps—but not for long. It confuses no one unless someone wants me condemned and refuted. Light distinguishes and refreshes; darkness confounds and unsettles. Besides, I deny that the distinction was unnecessary. Once subject and attribute of the question are distinguished, the labor of those who batter my view with such effort is wasted—which seems why these distinctions so greatly displeased them. "But," he says, "anyone can easily see for himself that, though Adam had many sins, the question concerns the one that was first among them." So I stated what anyone can easily see for himself: a grave crime indeed, and one that deserves sharp rebuke!

Latin

PLAC. Parum abest quin credam, hanc primi peccati Adae distinctionem Viro Docto commovisse bilem: adeo eam omni ex parte adoritur & sollicitat. Quid autem probare instituit? illam non necessariam fuisse. Fac ita esse; modo non sit falsa, non sit absurda, non sit causae meae noxia, causam non video, cur tantopere debeat exagitari. At distinguit & obturbat Lectorem. Distinguit forte, sed non diu. Obturbat autem neminem, nisi si quis me damnatum velit & confutatum. Lux distinguit & recreat: tenebrae confundunt & turbant. Praeterea nego non fuisse necessariam illam distinctionem. Ita enim distinctis subjecto & attributo quaestionis irritus fit eorum labor, qui meam sententiam tanto molimine oppugnant: quae causa videtur esse, cur hae distinctiones eis tantopere ingratae fuerint. Sed, inquit, unusquisque per se facile intelligere potest, cum plura fuerint Adami peccata, de uno illo quaeri, quod inter omnia primum fuit. Ergo id expressi, quod quisque per se facile intelligere potest: Grande scilicet crimen, & quod magnam reprehensionem meretur!

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.