On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §372

Man. Post. Cap. VII: PLAC — separable from condition, not from the person

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

PLAC. Perhaps when you say separable, you understand not only that they can be separated—so that, honors being lost, riches can remain, and nobility being lost, affinities can remain. But if it is so explained, who will not retort that Adam's goods also were separable, because the natural light of the intellect, and common notions, and the work of the law written in the hearts could remain, and yet rectitude, justice, holiness be lost—and we know it was done. And in this again the similitude holds. But when the heads of dissimilarity are explained, is nothing said of the first member? I acknowledge the four members were not so proposed by me that they were not explained one by one in order, and I confess I was longer in explaining the first. But the learned man, having read my words, seems to have had something else in mind which hindered him from both rightly contracting them and understanding them well. For he invents for me a mind very alien to mine. I said in the traitor's example that goods can be separated from the condition under which they were received; he understood that they can be separated from the traitor himself, or from the habit. And so I said one thing; he answers another.

Latin

PLAC. Forte cum separabilia dicis, intelligis non modo separari posse, ita ut scilicet, amissis honoribus, remanere possint divitiae, & amissa nobilitate, remanere possint affinitates. Quod si ita explicatur, quis non regerat, & bona Adami fuisse separabilia, quia & lumen naturale intellectus, & communes notiones, & opus legis scriptum in cordibus remanere potuit, & amitti tamen rectitudo, justitia, sanctitas — & factum esse novimus. Et in hoc iterum similitudo constat. At ubi dissimilitudinis capita explicantur, de primo membro nihil dicitur? Agnosco non ita quatuor membra a me proposita, ut non quatenus ordine singula explicata sint, & fateor me in explicando primo longiorem fuisse. Sed videtur vir doctus lectis verbis meis aliud quid mente agitasse, quod impedivit quominus ea & recte contraheret, & bene intelligeret. Mentem enim a mea valde alienam mihi affingit. Dixi in exemplo perduellis bona separari posse a conditione sub qua accepta sunt; ille intellexit separari posse ab ipso perduelli, aut a habitu. Itaque aliud dixi, ad aliud ille respondet.

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.