On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §326

Man. Post. Cap. VI: Job/Christ unclean begets unclean; soul-transfer deferral

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

If again you ask why this vice is in little children, I will answer with Job, that from the unclean a clean cannot be made, and with Christ Himself, that what is born of flesh is flesh. As man begot man, so the unclean begot the unclean, the corrupt the corrupt, according to nature's laws. Why then does this answer not satisfy you? Is it because you do not grasp how vice can be propagated and poured from parent into the offspring's soul? Yet there is no difficulty in that matter beyond what arises from the creation of the rational soul—which difficulty I tried to remove in my theses by a reason which you, because you did not understand it, carp at in the last chapter of your treatise, but in no way refute. For it is vain labor to refute what is not understood. When I come to that place, God helping, I will explain myself. Or is it because you do not grasp how one actual sin could bring into Adam a moral corruption to be propagated with the nature? Yet I had given the reason of this in the theses, which I have not read rejected or blamed by you in this whole treatise of yours.

Latin

Si rursus quaeras, cur hoc vitium puerulis insit, Respondebo cum Iobo, ex immundo fieri mundum non posse, Et cum ipso Christo, quod ex carne natum est, carnem esse. Quam homo hominem, tam immundus immundum, corruptus corruptum genuit, secundum leges naturae. Quid est quamobrem haec responsio tibi non satisfaciat? an quia non capis quomodo vitium propagari possit & a parente in prolis animam transfundi? atqui nihil in ea re est difficultatis, praeter eam quae oritur ex creatione animae rationalis: quam difficultatem thesibus meis tollere conatus sum ea ratione, quam tu, quia non intellexisti, carpis quidem in extremo tui tractatus Capite, sed nullo modo refutas. Frustra enim laboratur in refutando id, quod non intelligitur. Ad eum locum cum pervenero, Deo bene iuvante, meipsum explicabo. An quia non capis, quomodo unum actuale peccatum invehere potuerit in Adamum corruptionem moralem una cum natura propagandam? Atqui huius rei rationem in thesibus reddideram, quam a te rejectam aut reprehensam in toto isto tuo tractatu non legi.

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.