On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §351 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: extra causam; not extra — poena in Adam vs in us

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

t, what is said here of the stain or corruption inhering in Adam himself and proceeding from his actual sin is outside the present cause, where nothing else is treated than that we may know whether, apart from imputation of the first sin and consideration of God's singular judgment, a fit cause can be given of that outflow by which moral corruption is propagated from Adam into all. Means certainly are the things said here by me outside the present cause: for it is also treated that we may know why the first sin, rather than other sins, corrupted Adam's nature. For those who oppose me in this cause ascribe that no less to God's will than the outflow of that corruption into posterity. From there also an argument rises for me: for if the corruption inhering in Adam was not a punishment properly so called, but followed the actual sin necessarily, as the terminus follows the motion toward which it tends, it is consentaneous to reason that the same inhering in us is not a punishment properly so called either. For why would Adam's sin be punished in us by that evil with which it was not punished in Adam?

Latin

GAR. Primum, quae de labe seu corruptione in ipso Adamo haerente, & ex actuali ipsius peccato profecta hic dicuntur, sunt extra causam praesentem, ubi non aliud agitur, quam ut norimus, an citra imputationem peccati primi, singularis Dei judicii considerationem, idonea causa reddi possit dimanationis eius, qua corruptio moralis ex Adamo in omnes propagatur. PLAC. Nequaquam certe quae hic a me dicuntur, sunt extra causam praesentem: agitur enim etiam ut norimus, quare primum peccatum, potius quam alia peccata, corruperit naturam Adami. Id enim qui mihi in hac causa adversantur non minus Dei voluntati ascribunt, quam illius corruptionis dimanationem in posteros. Inde etiam mihi exoritur argumentum: nam si corruptio in Adamo haerens non fuit poena proprie dicta, sed secuta est necessario peccatum actuale, ut terminus ad quem sequitur motum, consentaneum est rationi, ut eadem nobis inhaerens, non sit etiam poena proprie dicta. Cur enim puniretur in nobis peccatum Adami eo malo, quo punitum non fuit in Adamo?

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