On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §362 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 6: first actual vs later; universal vs particular corruption

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

already shown that the reason of the first actual sin and of those that follow is very unequal: that corrupted nature, these do not likewise; and also of universal corruption seated in aversion from the true last end and conversion to a falsely apparent last end, and of that particular determination of corruption to certain objects—for the former is naturally propagated, the latter not likewise; the former can be taken away only by regeneration, the latter can sometimes without regeneration be taken away or even changed into its opposite. Therefore the learned man ought not to have supposed that the reason of both is the same.

Latin

PLAC. Iam ostendi, valde disparem esse rationem primi peccati actualis, & sequentium; illud corrupisse naturam, ista non item; necnon corruptionis universalis in aversione a vero fine ultimo & conversione ad finem ultimum falso apparentem sitae, & corruptionis illius particularis determinationis ad certa quaedam objecta; illam enim naturaliter propagari, hanc non item; illam non nisi per regenerationem tolli posse, hanc posse nonnunquam absque regeneratione aut tolli, aut etiam in oppositam mutari. Non igitur virum doctum supponere decuit, eandem esse utriusque rationem.

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