# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1672256038:0389
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1672256038:0389?run=74
# Title: [Vera Mens D. Thomae Et eius Scholae, de opinionum ex Lege delectu ut qualibet re Morali explicata & defensa. Adversus D. Caramuelis Apologema In D. Fagnanum] Vera Mens D. Thomæ Et eius Scholæ, de opinionum ex Lege delectu vt qualibet re Morali explicata & defensa. Adversvs D. Caramvelis Apologema In D. Fagnanum (shelfmark Leibn. Marg. 210:1)
# Folio 309, page id 1672256038:0389
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=1672256038&page=389
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/1672256038/jpgs/default/00000389.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 36 lines, status machine
# Lines: 36 recognised, mean confidence 0.94
# Machine transcription. Not an edition. Errors are expected: about 8% character error rate on Latin and French lines, higher on German.
# Licence: CC BY 4.0, Leibniz Legible. Machine output: do not ingest it as verified text; keep this provenance with the text.
# Wording rule: say "the machine reads it as …", never "Leibniz wrote".
# After the first blank line: the recognised lines in reading order, one per line.

IV. CLASS. ARO. SOLVT. NODO. ANONZ. XC. 304
Cajeranus tamen r. 2. Quaest cirata, docet huiulmodi actun
impudicitiae ex ignorancia vincibili, speciem lumere ab
objecto, in quod hc convertio; quia scit se aliena muliere
vei. Sed reoblernat P. Mercorus Cajerano addictisimus.
ita obscure loguitur, remasis commentario egeat quan
cextus Diui Thomae; e cum eadem dilticultas recurrisser
2.2. Gualt. 53. arc. 3. Vbi rerlat quaestionem de viro allicien-
cemulierem ad peccacu ex Polo moriuo libidinis, an huius-
modipeccatum pertincat ad speciem scandali, aut Forni-
cationis; conera morem, a difficulraris resolutione absti-
nec, his rerbismodestissimis: in hoc dubio libenter es-
sem discipulus; quoniam docere, nec me, nec alios noui.
Hinc rideat Anourmus (inquit P. MerCOrUS) quam disti-
cile sic actum ex ignorantia invincibili contra jus nacu-
rale admissum, ad decerminaram speciem peccari reuoca-
re; quandoquidem Cajeranus haeret, nec audet quidquam
staruere, de errore e actu ex ignorancia vincibili profecto,
qui tamen rerius postit ab objecto in quod Fertur, Spociena
sumere, quam actus, qui existit ab ignorantia invincibili.
quaecunque enim candem sic, scu juris politiui, sen nacu-
ralis, seu actus sic prohibicus, quia malus, seu ma-
lus, quia prohibitus; qui actum elicie, scir quid a
sat, nec tamen rolune sumere speciem ab objecto, nif
prohibitum sic, quia malum: ergo male coharet illorum
principiis, quam stacuune distinctio inter actus iure posi-
tiuo, aut nacurali malos. Nostra explicario huiulinodi
distinctionis apertior e Facilior est, nec puro à menre
Auoultini alienam; quae contra jus nacurale admitcuneur.
rix exculari ignorantiâ, quia illorum curpitudo non po-
telt nos latere, cum consciencia, huiulmodi peccatorum
reoscontinuo ltimuler, ee nili affectus inordinatissimi per-
srepant, huiusmodi reprehensiones conscientix audian-
tur a perrinacissimis quibulque; juris rero positiui nocitia
obscurior sic, e minus trma, e incerdum nulla: at que bis
Eacistr ricimo aegumenio Anon