On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §314 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: not any first act — why deficient over non-deficient

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

ore that disobedience of Adam is not imputed to us insofar as it is an act of Adam: for many other acts of his are not imputed; nor insofar as it is his first act—for it was not absolutely first, but only first in its kind; nor insofar as it is in its kind the first act of nature—for that also fits other acts; but insofar as it is an act of a failing nature. Now this is asked: why ought an act of a failing nature rather be imputed to us than an act of a nature not failing? For that, as I see, is from the failing of nature, not from nature itself. For what reason, when the rest are equal, should evil rather be imputed to us than good?

Latin

PLAC. Non igitur imputatur nobis inobedientia illa Adami, qua est actus Adami: alii enim multi eius actus non imputantur: nec qua est primus eius actus, non enim absolute primus fuit, sed tantum in suo genere, nec qua est in suo genere primus actus naturae; hoc enim aliis quoque actibus convenit, sed qua est actus naturae deficientis. Iam hoc quaeritur, quare actus naturae deficientis nobis potius imputari debeat, quam actus naturae non deficientis? id enim, ut video, a defectione est naturae, non ab ipsa natura. Quid est enim cur, cum caetera sunt paria, malum potius nobis imputetur, quam bonum?

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