On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §231

Man. Post. Cap. IV: GAR 2 formal/causal; PLAC actualis/habitualis

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

Garissoles' second reply. Attend carefully and active privation of righteousness—losing it and stripping oneself of it—is not formally identical with breaking the divine precept. Causally one may say precept-breaking is privation of righteousness, because the privation follows the breach (as pain is called a dissolving of continuity because it follows that dissolving). Formally they are not one thing under two names.

Placeus. I take privation to track the form of which it is the privation. Righteousness itself is twofold: actual and habitual. Moral evil, or sin, is usually formalized as privation of a good. So privation of actual righteousness is formally actual sin, and privation of habitual righteousness is formally habitual evil or sin. Is that not so? Actual law-breaking stands formally opposite actual righteousness—disobedience opposite obedience—so actual law-breaking is formally actual privation of righteousness. Likewise habitual disobedience stands formally opposite habitual righteousness, so it too is formally privation of habitual righteousness, that is, habitual sin. Against this the learned man brings three arguments.

Latin

GAR. 2. Si rem diligenter attendimus, patebit privationem activam justitiae, qua scil. homo amittit justitiam & ea seipsum spoliat, non esse formaliter idem cum violatione praecepti divini. Itaque verum quidem erit in sensu causali violationem divini praecepti esse justitiae privationem, quia scilicet ex violatione consequitur illa privatio; quo sensu dicitur dolor esse solutio continui, quia ad solutionem continui sequitur: sed in sensu formali non erit verum, ita scilicet ut reapse unum idemque sint, nec differant, nisi nominibus. PLAC. Ego vero existimo, privationem pro distinctione termini seu formae, cujus est privatio, distingui debere. Est autem justitia duplex, actualis nempe, & habitualis. Forma mali moralis, seu peccati collocari solet in privatione boni. Justitiae igitur actualis privatio est formaliter peccatum actuale; justitiae vero habitualis privatio est formaliter malum seu peccatum habituale. Nonne? Cum ergo actualis violatio legis formaliter opponatur justitiae actuali, hoc est, inobedientia obedientiae, necesse est ut actualis violatio legis sit formaliter actualis privatio justitiae, & cum habitualis violatio legis seu inobedientia formaliter opponatur habituali justitiae seu obedientiae, necesse est ut ipsa quoque sit formaliter privatio justitiae habitualis, atque adeo peccatum habituale. Sed contra disputat Vir Doctus tribus rationibus.

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.