On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §77

Cap. VIII: Feeble collection — nothing beyond prior refutations

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

I see no strength in this argument that is not already present in the earlier ones, now amply refuted. For how weak this collection is: Here κρίμα, judgment or guilt from Adam, is set opposite Christ's δώρημα. Therefore, as the one does not signify a quality inhering in us, neither does the other?

Latin

Nihil roboris in hoc argumento video, quod non extet in superioribus jam abundè refutatis. Quae enim & quam imbecilla est haec collectio; Hic κρίμα judicium sive reatus ex Adamo, opponitur δώρημα Christi. Ergo ut hoc non significat qualitatem nobis inhaerentem, sic nec illud?

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.