On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §174 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 2: Garissoles says the second and third senses coincide

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

Garissoles: But in this distinction of the subject as well there are points that, well weighed, can scarcely be approved. For (1) what is gained by distinguishing the second sense of Adam's sin from the third, when whatever is said here of Adam's sin in the second sense is claimed to fit it in reality not as a passing act but as habitual, lasting corruption? So Adam's sin in the second and third modes really coincides in the same thing.

Latin

GAR. Sed & in hac subjecti distinctione nonnulla continentur, quae bene perpendenti vix est ut probari valeant. Nam 1. Quo fructu secunda peccati Adae significatio distinguitur a tertia, cum quicquid de peccato Adae in secunda significatione hic dicitur, ei reapse convenire asseratur, non quatenus est actio transiens, sed quatenus est corruptio habitualis & permanens? Ita enim peccatum Adae secundo & tertio modo dictum in idem revera coincidunt.

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