On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §301 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: mandate vs threat

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

Add that on that account the command would have belonged to Adam one way, the threat another: the former as to the head of the human race, the latter as to a private person; and conversely the threat would have belonged to us, not likewise the command. Finally, why was that covenant not contracted on this condition, that as he sinned, so also he should be punished as head of the human race? If you fall back on the will of God, what need was there of any other answer to these questions than that general one, because God so willed? But see that you do not ascribe to Him a will suited to your own ingenuity, least fitting to His virtues, and beyond Scripture.

Latin

Adde quod ea ratione aliter ad Adamum pertinuisset mandatum, aliter comminatio: illud ut ad caput generis humani, haec ut ad privatam personam: & vice versa ad nos pertinuisset comminatio, non item mandatum. Denique cur non ea conditione contractum est istud foedus, ut quemadmodum peccaret, sic etiam puniretur ut caput generis humani? Si recurras ad voluntatem Dei, quid opus erat ad has quaestiones alia responsione, quam generali ista, quia Deus ita voluit? Sed vide ne ei voluntatem attribuas pro tuo ingenio eius virtutibus minime convenientem, ac praeter Scripturam.

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