On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §309 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: foedus quamprimum

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

n this account the covenant was conceived by God with Adam: that as soon as he violated it, he would bind himself and his with that guilt. But he violated it before he had put on the habit of corruption; and that actual sin was prior in nature to that habit. Therefore the act was imputed, not the habit. That the learned man had reported the words in which that covenant was conceived! For if he did not know them, how could he know that it was conceived on that account? What is easier than thus to invent reasons?

Latin

GAR. 4. Ea ratione foedus a Deo cum Adamo conceptum est, ut quamprimum illud violaret, se & suos illo reatu obstringeret. Violavit autem priusquam habitum corruptionis induisset: & fuit illud actuale peccatum natura prius illo habitu. Ideo actio imputata, non imputatus habitus. PLAC. Utinam vir doctus verba retulisset quibus illud foedus fuit conceptum! Nam si ea nescivit, qui scire potuit illud ea ratione fuisse conceptum? Quid est facilius quam sic rationes fingere?

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