On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §233

Man. Post. Cap. IV: PLAC — velle & nolle; materialiter/formaliter

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

Placeus. Both premises fail. On the major: one and the same person can, for different reasons, will and refuse the same thing at once—hence hesitation, deliberation, and the clash among our thoughts and choices. There is a will aligned with right reason and a will that errs against it; the erring will sometimes fights itself. No one formally wills evil as evil—as privation of a good—so it is no wonder Adam did not formally will the loss of righteousness; that would have been to will his sin under the aspect of evil.

What Garissoles says in the minor—that Adam willed to break the precept only materialiter, not formaliter—is right. Adam willed what was in fact a breach of God's command, but under the guise of some great apparent good, not under the aspect "breach of divine law." If he had formally meant to break the precept and yet refused to lose righteousness, he would have been a fool, imagining inseparable things could be parted.

Latin

PLAC. Utraque propositio est falsa; Major quidem; potest enim unum idemque homo idem eodem tempore ob diversas rationes velle & nolle. Idque evenit frequenter: inde haesitatio, & deliberatio, & pugna nonnunquam inter cogitationes volitionesque nostras. Deinde est voluntas rectae rationi conformis, & est voluntas errans & rectae rationi repugnans: haec secum ipsa nonnunquam pugnat. Denique nemo vult malum qua malum formaliter, hoc est, quatenus est privatio boni. Itaque mirum videri non debet, si Adamus privationem justitiae formaliter non voluit. Ita enim peccatum suum voluisset sub ratione mali. Quod etiam in Minore ait, Adamum voluisse violare Dei praeceptum, materialiter tantum ut sic loquar, non formaliter, verum est. Voluit enim id quod erat violatio praecepti Dei, sed non sub ratione violationis praecepti divini, sed sub ratione magnae cujusdam bonitatis sibi falso apparentis. Quod si formaliter volebat violare Dei praeceptum, & tamen nolebat justitiam suam amittere, stultus erat, putans separari posse, quae separari nullo modo poterant.

About this text

New English, free to read. Open any section below.

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.