On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §36

Cap. VII: Formal opposites versus individuals — disease and remedy

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

But grant it to be so: will the proposition not have to be understood of those things which are opposed formally and adequately and in genus, but not of certain individuals of them? For in genus obedience and disobedience, righteousness and injustice, are opposed, and so when one is known the other is easily known. But in species, or in the individual, a certain obedience of one can be known while a certain disobedience of the other is unknown, and vice versa — this known, that unknown: and that we may not leave the matter subject to this dispute, Adam's disobedience could once be known while Christ's obedience, which heals it, was not known; and this could become known to some of the Gentiles before they were taught anything of Adam's disobedience. For since they differ in subjects and objects and law and time and all other circumstances, they are indeed two certain individuals of opposite genera, but they themselves are not properly opposed per se, except by reason of effects, as disease and remedy. For formally and speaking logically, Adam's disobedience was opposed to the obedience due from him, and Christ's obedience to the disobedience which it excluded from the same subject. But leaving those philosophical propositions, let us come to the theological.

Latin

Sed fac ita esse, annon erit intelligenda propositio de iis, quae formaliter et adaequate et in genere opponuntur, non autem de certis quibusdam eorum individuis? In genere enim obedientia et inobedientia, iustitia et iniustitia opponuntur, itaque altera cognita, altera facile cognoscitur. Sed in specie, vel individuo, potest certa quaedam unius obedientia cognosci, ignorata certa quadam alterius inobedientia et vice versa, haec cognosci, illa ignorata: ac ne discedamus a subiecta huic disputationi materia, potuit olim cognosci inobedientia Adami non cognita, quae ei medetur, Christi obedientia, et haec potuit quibusdam e gentibus nota fieri antequam quicquam de Adami inobedientia edocerentur. Nimirum cum et subiectis, et obiectis, et lege, et tempore, et omnibus aliis circumstantiis differant, sunt quidem oppositorum generum duo quaedam individua, sed ipsae per se non opponuntur proprie, nisi ratione effectorum, ut morbus et remedium. Formaliter enim et Logice loquendo inobedientia Adami opposita fuit debitae ab eo obedientiae, et obedientia Christi inobedientiae quam ex eodem subiecto exclusit. Sed missis illis Philosophicis propositionibus veniamus ad Theologicas.

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.