On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §585

Man. Post. Cap. IX: PLAC — corruptus in Adamo ≠ corruptus simpliciter; root before branches

I pass over that the learned man uses the fallacy from what is said in a certain respect to what is said simply. For it is one thing to be corrupt in a certain respect, or with this limitation in Adam, another to be corrupt simply or without such a limitation. This does not follow from that, if the reason of that time is had, when Adam was first corrupted: for the corruption of the root or fountain is signified, not of the branches or streams, because they were not yet. But it is prior to be than to be corrupt.

Latin

Taceo Virum doctum uti fallacia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Aliud enim est esse corruptum secundum quid, seu cum hac limitatione in Adamo, aliud esse corruptum simpliciter seu absque eiusmodi limitatione. Hoc ex illo non sequitur, si temporis illius ratio habeatur, cum primum Adamus corruptus fuit: significatur enim corruptio radicis seu fontis, non ramorum aut rivorum, quoniam nondum erant: prius autem est esse quam esse corruptum.

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.