On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §142 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 12: Placeus's duplex reply — being and dying in Adam without immediate imputation

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

Yet we were in Adam two ways, Daubuz says — ἁπλῶς and κατὰ μέρος, representatively and naturally. Whole human nature was in Adam without doubt (so Thomas on Romans 5, lecture 3 near the end: we were in Adam by bodily substance and by seminal reason); and in Adam the person sinned, so nature was guilty of the fault then done and of the punishment to come. First: Placeus is not arguing here but answering. Is that answer true or false? If true, they are not 'deceived by deceiving.' If false, the falsehood should have been shown. The learned man does not show it. Inside Placeus's reply there lay a double argument — one from existence, one from death. From existence: we are not said to have sinned in Adam otherwise than to have been in him. But we are not said to have been in him by imputation; his being is not imputed to us — it is only propagated into us. Therefore we are not to be said to have sinned in him by imputation either, but by a real sharing of his sin through natural propagation. Again: we did not sin in Adam otherwise than we were in him. But we were not in him immediately, only through intermediate parents descended from him. Therefore we did not sin in him immediately, only through our parents' original vices descended from him. From death: we are not said to have sinned in Adam otherwise than to die in him. But we die in him not because his death is imputed, but because death is actually propagated into us. Therefore we sinned in him not by imputed sin, but by sin actually propagated into us. Does the learned man prove or answer anything that breaks or even weakens arguments of this kind? Nothing at all.

Latin

Atqui in Adamo fuimus dupliciter ἁπλῶς & κατὰ μέρος, scilicet repraesentative & naturaliter; tota quidem natura humana, quae citra dubium fuit in Adamo (ut ait Thom. in cap. 5. ad Rom. Lect. 3. circa finem; Nos fuimus in Adamo secundum corpulentam substantiam & secundum seminalem rationem) & per personam peccavit in Adamo, rea fuit & culpae tunc commissae & poenae futurae. Primum non argumentatur Placeus, sed respondet. Est-ne igitur illud quod respondet verum, an falsum? Si verum, non fallendo fallitur. Si falsum, falsitas ostendenda fuit. Id quod a viro docto non fit. Latebat autem in responsione illa Placei duplex argumentum, unum ab existentia, alterum a morte. Illud sic potest concipi; Non aliter in Adamo peccasse quam fuisse dicimur. Atqui in Adamo non dicimur fuisse imputative; eius enim esse nobis non imputatur: sed tantum eius esse in nos est propagatum. Ergo nec peccasse dicendi sumus in Adamo imputative, sed reali peccati eius per propagationem naturalem communicatione. Item sic; Non aliter in Adamo peccavimus quam fuimus. Atqui non fuimus in Adamo proxime seu immediate, sed mediantibus parentibus nostris intermediis ab eo propagatis. Ergo non peccavimus in Adamo proxime seu immediate, sed mediantibus parentum nostrorum ab eo propagatis originalibus vitiis. Argumentum vero ductum a morte, sic potest formari. Non aliter in Adamo peccavisse quam mori dicimur. Sed morimur in Adamo, non imputata nobis Adami morte, sed morte reapse in nos propagata. Ergo peccavimus in Adamo, non imputato eius peccato, sed peccato reapse in nos propagato. Probat-ne, aut respondet aliquid Vir doctus, quod hujusmodi argumenta destruat, aut aliquomodo infirmet? Nihil prorsus.

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