On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §679

Man. Post. Cap. X: PLAC — prove OT faithful knew antecedent imputation; Scripture? tradition?

PLAC. First, from where does the learned man have it that both were equally known to the faithful of the Old Testament?

From Scripture? Why did he not produce a place?

From unwritten tradition? Then Scripture was not enough for them; and where is that tradition?

He flees to Paul in vain: for whether Paul taught that antecedent imputation or not is just what is now disputed between us; the learned man has not proved that he taught it; I have already proved by several arguments that he did not, and I am engaged in proving it.

Latin

PLAC. Primum unde habet Vir doctus fidelibus veteris Testamenti aeque notum utrumque fuisse? Ex Scriptura? Cur locum non protulit? Ex traditione non scripta? Non igitur sufficiebat illis Scriptura; & ubi illa traditio? Ad Paulum frustra confugit: utrum enim illam imputationem antecedentem docuerit, necne, nunc quidem inter nos controvertitur; docuisse non probavit Vir doctus; Ego non docuisse iam aliquot argumentis probavi, & in eo sum ut probem.

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.