On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §293 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: Pelagian parallel

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

But we answer. I. Generally. If there ought to be room for such pinpoint interrogations, the doctrine of Original corruption can be no less speciously harassed by the followers of Pelagius or Socinus than this doctrine of imputation is vexed here. For it would be asked 1. Why Adam's moral corruption rather infected posterity than posterity's corruption stained Adam? 2. Why Adam's sin necessarily descended into posterity, and that of other fathers not so? 3. Why Adam's sin hurt Cain, and Cain's sin hurt Adam not at all? 4. Why the first sin rather corrupted us than Adam's following sins? 5. Why was Adam freed from that corruption... and all infants... not freed? 6. Why is Christ called our righteousness and sanctification, and Adam not called our sin and corruption? These and other things can be asked against the doctrine of inborn corruption, which if they do not hinder the learned man from having to acknowledge that corruption, neither ought those little questions to be an impediment to us from persevering in the ancient and Catholic faith of imputation. Faith of immediate imputation thus ancient and catholic? That has neither been proved thus far, nor can it be proved.

Latin

GAR. VII. Nos vero respondemus. I. Generaliter. Si ejusmodi interrogationum punctulis locus esse debeat, non minus speciose sollicitari posse doctrinam de corruptione Originali a Pelagii aut Socini sectatoribus, quam haec de imputatione doctrina hic vexatur. Quaeretur enim 1. Cur Adami corruptio moralis posteros potius infecit, quam corruptio posterorum inquinavit Adamum? 2. Cur Adami peccatum in posteros necessario descendit, caeterorum patrum non ita descendit? 3. Cur Adami peccatum Caino nocuit, Caini peccatum Adamo minime nocuit? 4. Cur primum peccatum nos potius corrupit, quam sequentia? 5. Cur Adamus ab illa corruptione liberatus est ... infantes omnes ... non liberantur? 6. Cur Christus justitia & sanctificatio nostra dicitur, Adamus non dicitur peccatum & corruptio nostra? Haec & alia adversus doctrinam de corruptione ingenita queri possunt, quae si non obstant quominus Viri docti corruptionem illam agnoscere debeant; neque debent quaestiunculae illae impedimento nobis esse, quominus in antiqua & Catholica imputationis fide perseveremus. PLAC. Itane antiqua & catholica est imputationis immediatae fides? Id neque probatum est hactenus, neque probari potest.

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