On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §486

Man. Post. Cap. IX: three names ≠ actual cut from Adam's corruption

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

Next I deny that the Apostle by any of those three names designated Adam's actual sin cut off from the corruption which it produced in Adam, although yet this our controversy must be understood of actual sin so cut off. For you will have it that by that actual sin of his Adam earned that corruption both for himself and for us. You cannot therefore prove that by hamartia in this place Adam's actual sin must be understood.

Latin

Deinde nego Apostolum ullo eorum trium nominum peccatum actuale Adami designasse praecisum à corruptione quam in Adamo peperit, cum tamen de peccato actuali ita praeciso intelligenda sit haec nostra controversia. Vis enim peccato illo suo actuali Adamum meruisse cum sibi tum nobis illam corruptionem. Non ergo potes probare per ἁμαρτίαν hoc loco peccatum actuale Adami esse intelligendum.

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.