On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §348 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: corruption as poena; natural propagation with permission

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

And it is called a punishment, because it did not befall Adam without divine permission and desertion, God not hindering the natural efficacy and sequel of the actual sin—both because it could not be hindered except against the order of nature, and because by that very actual sin of his Adam was becoming worthy that God should desert him. He therefore judged and most justly determined not to hinder the production of that corruption in Adam. But Adam's corruption being posited and the procreation of children, there followed the propagation of that corruption into posterity by the force and law of nature, yet not without God's permission.

Latin

& poena vocatur, quia non accidit Adamo sine divina permissione ac desertione, Deo non impediente peccati actualis naturalem efficaciam & sequelam, tum quia impediri non potuit nisi contra ordinem naturae, tum quia suo ipso peccato actuali dignus fiebat Adamus quem Deus desereret. Judicavit igitur & constituit justissime non impedire corruptionis illius productionem in Adamo. Posita autem corruptione Adami & procreatione liberorum secuta est propagatio illius corruptionis in posteros naturae vi & lege, non tamen sine Dei permissione.

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