On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §94

Cap. IX: Garissoles Levi–Abraham parallel; concede without immediate imputation

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

II. But what does D. Garissoles gather from Levi's being tithed? "As," he says, "Abraham was the originative principle of the Levitical nation, which was propagated from him according to seminal relation, so also Adam is the material principle of the whole human race as far as natural generation is concerned. Therefore if the Apostle rightly said that the Levitical priests were tithed in Abraham because they were in his loins when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, the priest of God, nothing strange or unusual ought to seem in the saying that all humans sinned in Adam and in him were ruined and damned, insofar as all were in the loins of him while he was sinning." What forbids me to grant this whole comparison, while still denying the immediate imputation of Adam's first actual sin?

Latin

II. Sed quid ex decimatione Levi colligit D. Garissolius? Sicut, inquit, Abrahamus originarium fuit principium Gentis Leviticae, quae secundum rationem seminalem ab eo propagata est, ita & Adam principium est materiale totius generis humani, quod ad generationem naturalem attinet. Itaque si recte dictum est ab Apostolo Leviticos sacerdotes decimatos fuisse in Abrahamo, quia in ejus lumbis erant, quando scilicet Abrahamus Dei sacerdoti Melchisedeco decimas persolvit; nihil mirum videri debet, aut inusitatum, quod dicuntur omnes homines peccasse in Adamo, & in eo perditi ac damnati fuisse, quatenus omnes in ejus peccantis lumbis fuerunt. Quid vetat me hoc totum concedere, negantem imputationem primi Adae peccati actualis immediatam?

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.