On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §389 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 7: magistrate judgments — prove justice from Scripture

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

for those about to answer, that ought first of all to have been clearly explained—whether they think in such magistrates' judgments anything unjust or cruel is designated which ought to have been done otherwise, and on account of which they can be struck with just accusation in the forum of conscience. For if those Judges' sentences are just, there is no doubt they have their approval with God, who cannot but approve what is just and good when it is done. But what is just and good and holy among men who think rightly—why is it traduced as absurd and monstrous and full of injustice when it is said to be done by God? my reply is good, or bad. If good, why did the learned man not admit it? If bad, he ought to have shown its fault, not prescribe me another way of answering. Then that very way of answering which he demands can be turned back on him: for either such judges' sentences are just, or unjust. If just, he ought to have demonstrated their justice, either by some testimony of Scripture, or by a necessary and evident reason, whence it would be clear that God delights in like sentences.

Latin

GAR. Atqui responsuris illud ante omnia clare fuerat explicandum, putentne in eiusmodi magistratuum judiciis aliquid injustum aut crudele designari, quod secus fieri oportuerit, & cuius nomine in foro conscientiae justa possint accusatione percelli. Nam si justa sunt ea Judicum sententiae, non dubium est quin suam apud Deum approbationem habeant, qui quae justa sunt & bona non potest non approbare cum fiunt. Quae vero justa & bona & sancta sunt, apud homines recte sentientes, cur tanquam absurda, & immania, & injustitia plena traducantur, cum a Deo fieri dicuntur? PLAC. Aut bona est mea responsio, aut mala. Si bona, cur eam non admisit Vir doctus? Si mala, debuit eius vitium ostendere, non aliam mihi respondendi rationem praescribere. Deinde illa ipsa respondendi ratio quam exigit potest in eum retorqueri: nam vel justae sunt eiusmodi judicum sententiae, vel injustae. Si justae, demonstrare debuit earum justitiam, vel Scripturae aliquo testimonio, vel necessaria & evidenti ratione, unde constet similibus Deum delectari sententiis.

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