FathersVia Patrum

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §44

Cap. VII: Ad alias rationes — Prima: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as antecedent cause, not end

As for the other reasons, would that their own author had undertaken to defend them — by the wisdom and eloquence with which he seems to me to be marked — he would have performed that far better than I. The first stands thus, as D. Garissoles reports it; for I do not have the manuscript from which they were taken. Faith must rest with him. Nobody is ignorant that on whichichich, among good authors, either denotes the end of a thing (τὸ τέλος) or an antecedent cause, as in Synesius, on whichichich γεννάδιον ἔχαρε. Since therefore an end cannot be denoted in this place, it follows that an antecedent cause is designated, and that it be rendered "in that," or "because." What does D. Garissoles answer? This one thing only: that ἐπί joined with the relative ὅς, ἥ, ὅ, although it sometimes marks an end and sometimes an antecedent cause, nevertheless most frequently has the force of the preposition ἐν. Mark 2:4: on whichichich κατέκειτο, "in which he was lying," and so on. But what is this except a wandering from the argument? For in the argument the discussion was of the words on whichichich placed absolutely — that is, without an expressed antecedent to which the pronoun ᾧ is referred. For when there is a near antecedent to which it is referred, who ever thought those words ought to be rendered "in that" or "because"? But here they are placed absolutely: for what immediately precedes is the noun θάνατος used twice, and before that ἁμαρτία; and it is established that they are referred to neither neuter. The genitive ἀνθρώπου, "man," does indeed precede; but intervening nouns — nay, even commas — stand in the way of referring the relative to him (Romans 5:12).

Latin

Ad alias rationes quod spectat, utinam eas suus autor suscepisset tuendas, qua mihi videtur esse et sapientia et eloquentia, praestitisset id, quam ego, multo melius. Prima sic se habet, referente D. Garissolio; Manuscriptum enim ex quo sunt desumptae non habeo. Fidem esse penes eum oportet. Nemo nescit illud, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, apud bonos autores, vel denotare finem rei, τὸ τέλος, vel causam antecedentem, ut apud Synesium, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γεννάδιον ἔχαρε. Cum igitur finis hoc loco denotari non possit, sequitur ut causa antecedens designetur, et vertatur eo quod, vel propterea quod. Quid respondet D. Gar? Hoc unum, ἐπί junctum cum relativo ὅς, ἥ, ὅ, quanquam aliquando finem, aliquando causam antecedentem notet, tamen frequentissime vim habere praepositionis ἐν. Marc. 2. 4. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κατέκειτο in quo jacebat &c. Sed quid hoc est, nisi aberratio ab argumento? Nam in argumento agebatur de vocibus ἐφ᾽ ᾧ absolute positis, hoc est, absque expresso antecedente ad quod pronomen ᾧ referatur. Cum enim est in proximo antecedens ad quod refertur, quis unquam eas vertendas putavit eo quod vel propterea quod? Hic autem ponuntur absolute, quod enim proxime antecedit est nomen θάνατος bis usurpatum, ac ante illud ἁμαρτία; ad neutrum referri constat. Praecedit quidem Genitivus ἀνθρώπου hominem; Sed quominus ad eum referri possit, obstant interjecta nomina, immo commata.

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.