On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §435

Man. Post. Cap. VIII: premises need times-distinction; positive law may be temporary

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

Although I admit the conclusion of this syllogism of yours, yet the premises are not so clear that they do not need some distinction useful to the matter we are treating. For how, I ask, do you understand these propositions—that the Lord gave that law not only to Adam but also to all posterity; that by that law eating of that fruit was forbidden to men? Times certainly must be distinguished. For if Adam had begotten children in paradise, that interdict would have bound them after they had been born—unless perhaps God at last abrogated that interdict; for who knows the mind of the Lord? It was a positive law, fencing Adam's freedom of choice about a thing indifferent by its own nature, and so could be prescribed for a time and, that time elapsed, abrogated, just as the laws about choice of foods which God once laid down for his people. Who of us can know whether God had willed that interdict to be in force forever, or only for some certain time, which being finished, and man's obedience amply proved, he would have taken away, man being given freedom thereafter to use that tree? For it does not become us to break into God's secrets, or confidently to assert what we do not know.

Latin

Quamvis autem conclusionem huius tui syllogismi admittam, tamen non sunt ita liquida praemissae, quin aliqua distinctione egeant, ad rem quam agimus, utili. Nam quomodo, quaeso, intelligis has propositiones, Dominum legem illam dedisse non tantum Adamo, sed etiam posteris omnibus; lege illa interdictum fuisse hominibus esum illius fructus? Distinguenda certe sunt tempora. Nam si Adamus in paradiso liberos genuissent, eos, postea quam geniti fuissent, interdictum illud obligasset; nisi forte interdictum illud Deus tandem abrogasset; quis enim novit mentem Domini? Positiva lex fuit, libertatem arbitrii Adami circa rem natura sua indifferentem circumscribens, ac proinde potuit ad tempus praescribi, eoque tempore elapso abrogari, quemadmodum leges de ciborum delectu, quas Deus olim tulerat populo suo. Quis nostrum scire potest, utrum Deus voluisset interdictum illud perpetuo vigere, an vero ad certum quoddam tempus duntaxat, quo exacto, & probata abunde hominis obedientia, illud sustulisset, facta homini copia utendi in posterum illa arbore? Haud enim decet nos in Dei arcana irrumpere, aut ea quae ignoramus confidenter asseverare.

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.