Universa Philosophia

But that this copulative is defined is clear from session 5 of the Council of Trent, asserting that all the posterity of Adam are born in sin. Under which universal affirmative are contained copulatively all singular affirmatives. For example: Ego, et alii nati sumus in peccato. But this is not contained, ego non sum natus in peccato, vel alii nati sunt in peccato; because a universal affirmative contains no singular negative nor a disjunctive descent, but a copulative one: therefore this disjunctive cannot be the exponent of this catholic proposition, non tantum ego natus sum in peccato: but that copulative and affirmative will be its exponent. Which is clear, because if anyone were to say, Christus non est homo, in order to correct the error, he ought determinately to say, Christus est homo: nor would he satisfy if he said Christus non est homo, vel lapis est substantia, because although this is true, nevertheless it is not determinately conceded what he determinately denied before: therefore similarly, one who said, non tantum ego natus sum in peccato, would not satisfy if he had this sense: ego non sum natus in peccato, vel alii sunt nati, because he would not determinately affirm what he determinately denied, and his proposition could be true without his being born in sin. But in my opinion it satisfies, because it affirms me, et alios natos in peccato originali. Therefore this mode of resolving is suitable: nor would it be difficult to show the falsity of the rules which the Summulists hand down concerning the other modes.

For they thought that a negation prefixed to the mode denies the whole proposition, when it denies only the negation of the mode itself. Whom I do not argue in this last argument for falsity in their proposition, but for ineptness in expounding exclusive propositions.