On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §556

Man. Post. Cap. IX: PLAC tip — if peccatum figurative here, orthodox arms vs Pelagius fail; tip before GAR Resp.3

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

If the name of sin is not taken properly in this place, but figuratively, by that figure by which the antecedent is put for the consequent, how do the Orthodox argue from this place against Pelagius and Pighius? And, if it is taken properly, how is it at the same time taken figuratively?

Latin

Si peccati nomen non accipitur proprie hoc loco, sed figurate, ea figura, qua ponitur antecedens pro consequente, quomodo ex hoc loco argumentantur adversus Pelagium & Pighium Orthodoxi? Et, si accipitur proprie, quomodo simul accipitur figurate?

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.