On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §373

Man. Post. Cap. VII: PLAC rectitude inseparable from perfect obedience

I know that Adam's goods which he lost could be separated from him, and were separated. I know that some of them could be separated from one another. I know that in that respect there is a likeness between Adam and the traitorous courtier: but what is that to the point? For it does not hinder there being that dissimilarity between them which I observed. For Adam's goods—that is, rectitude, justice, integrity—could not be separated from perfect obedience, or the condition required of him. To persevere in perfect obedience toward God, and to persevere in moral rectitude, justice, integrity, were either altogether the same things, or at least inseparably connected: and likewise not to persevere in obedience toward God, and not to persevere in rectitude, justice, and integrity, were either the same or indivisibly coherent. Do nobility, wealth, and civil dignities cohere similarly with faithfulness? Does it imply a contradiction that, that being lost, these at least for a time be retained? Is there not therefore between Adam and such a traitor a memorable dissimilarity in that respect?

Latin

Scio bona Adami quibus excidit, potuisse ab eo separari, & separata fuisse. Scio potuisse eorum quaedam a se invicem separari. Scio ea in re similitudinem esse inter Adamum & aulicum perduellem: sed quid hoc ad rhombum? Non enim impedit, esse eam dissimilitudinem inter utrumque quam observavi. Bona enim Adami, hoc est, rectitudo, justitia, integritas, separari non poterant a perfecta obedientia, seu conditione quae ab eo exigebatur. Perseverare in perfecta obedientia erga Deum, & perseverare in rectitudine, justitia, integritate morali, res erant aut eaedem prorsus, aut saltem inseparabiliter connexa: & similiter non perseverare in obedientia erga Deum, & non perseverare in rectitudine, justitia, & integritate, res erant vel eaedem vel indivulse cohaerentes. Num similiter cum fidelitate cohaerent nobilitas, opes, dignitatesque civiles? Num implicat contradictionem illa amissa, has saltem ad tempus retineri? Nonne igitur inter Adamum & eiusmodi perduellem ea in re est memorabilis dissimilitudo?

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.