On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §130 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 10: Garissoles’s contradiction; Placeus keeps consequent reatus — before Chapter 11

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

I can also charge Lord Garissoles with a contradiction here. He says that if no guilt precedes corruption, we do not need Christ’s imputed justice; yet elsewhere he admits an imputation and a guilt that follow corruption. What matching remedy answers that later guilt? Sanctification? It does not properly stand against guilt. Christ’s imputed justice? Once consequent or mediate imputation is granted, that justice is what we need. So Placeus does not shake the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness: he owns consequent imputation and guilt, and with them original sin and the need for Christ’s satisfaction — and he shares nothing with Socinian, Arminian, and kindred errors.

Latin

Possem etiam hoc loco contradictionem Domino Garissolio objicere. Ait enim, si nullus sit reatus prior corruptione, non esse opus imputata Christi justitia, & tamen alibi fatetur esse imputationem, & reatum corruptione posteriorem. Huic reatui qui corruptionem sequitur, quod justa proportione remedium respondet? sanctificatio? non opponitur proprie reatui. Justitia Christi imputata? Haec igitur, posita imputatione consequente seu mediata, nobis necessaria est. Itaque non labefactatur a Placeo doctrina de justitia Christi imputata: agnoscit enim imputationem & reatum consequentem; atque adeo peccatum originale, & satisfactionis Christi necessitatem, nihilque habet cum erroribus Socinianorum, Arminianorum &c, conjunctum.

Report a mistake in this passage

About this text

Josué de la Place (Placeus) on the imputation of Adam's first sin: chapters 1 to 12 and 14, and the later disputation up to its chapter on Romans 5:14, from the Latin. The rest is not yet translated.

Josué de la Place (c. 1596–1655), known in Latin as Placeus, was pastor at Nantes and from 1633 professor of theology at the Academy of Saumur, the school of Cameron and Amyraut.

On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin argues the distinctive Saumur thesis: Adam's sin reaches his posterity only mediately, through the inherited corruption — never by immediate reckoning of a sin they did not commit. Fellow Reformed theologians rejected the view, but the book remains its classic statement.

Part only: Chapters 1–12 and 14, and the disputation up to Romans 5:14

Datec. 1645–1655 AD (written after the 1645 Synod of Charenton, and read in draft by Drelincourt by 10 December 1653; printed posthumously at Saumur, 1661; Reformed / Amyraldian circle)

The English is made from the 1661 Saumur Latin of chapters 1 to 12 and 14 and part of the later disputation. No earlier English was copied.

Printed text used

Translated from Latin (Saumur 1661) (Latin)
Also checked Text extract of Caput Primum (Latin)
Also checked machine-read text of the 1661 volume (Latin)

We have not yet re-checked this work against its source. We made this study translation with AI help. No scholar has yet certified it as faithful and complete. Open Latin on any section, or the Latin source link, to see the source text. It is not a critical edition.

Report a mistake