On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §139 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 12: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ — peccavimus in Adamo; deny in quo; mediate corruption conceded

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

Leaving that aside, he turns to Scripture, and first to on which πάντες ἥμαρτον. We sinned in Adam, he says; therefore we share his sin and stand guilty; therefore the offense is rightly imputable — and imputed. Grant the imputation, so long as it comes by way of corruption: what does that do against us? Next I deny that on which must mean 'in whom.' He leans on translators who so rendered it, names them, and concludes that someone has written rashly or sleepily who said τὸ on which should not be 'in whom' but 'because.' That charge hits Placeus and everyone who preferred 'because,' 'inasmuch as,' 'since,' and the like to 'in whom.' Had they thought 'in whom' required, they would have kept it; had they not thought 'because' right, they would not have written 'because.' For our answer it is enough that 'because' is possible — and that it is the right rendering was already shown above at page 70 and following. Finally, to say we sinned in Adam it is enough that Adam's sin caused ours, just as his being caused ours.

Latin

Sed his missis argumentatur ex Scriptura, & primo ex verbis ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Peccavimus, inquit, in Adamo, Ergo illius peccati participes, rei; ergo imputabile iure, & imputatum delictum illud. Primum esto, imputetur, modo id fieri intelligatur mediante corruptione, quid hoc contra nos? Deinde, nego verba ἐφ᾽ ᾧ verti debere in quo. Id probare conatur autoritate eorum qui sic verterunt, quibus nominatis concludit, Hinc patere, quam praecipitanter, aut quam oscitanter non nemo scripserit, nec τὸ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ verti debere in quo, sed eo quod. Quae accusatio una cum Placeo eos omnes petit, qui maluerunt eo quod, vel quatenus, vel quoniam, &c. quam in quo, vertere: qui haud dubie, si putassent verti debere in quo, versionem illam retinuissent; si non putassent verti debere eo quod &c., non eo quod vertissent. Caeterum & nobis respondentibus satis est posse verti eo quod &c., & sic debere reddi probatum est supra pag. 70. & seqq. Denique, ut dicamur peccasse in Adamo satis est, si peccatum Adami causa fuerit peccati nostri, sicut eius esse nostri esse causa fuit.

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