On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §421 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 7: flood/Sodom/Abimelech; — cuts not solves; what is justus?

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

2. Because Abraham could not have been ignorant of certain examples of that divine dispensation which God had set before the eyes of all—first in the general flood, then in the overthrow of Sodom, third in Abimelech's household—all of which we produced above in their place. Is is not to untie the knot, but to cut it. What if in Ezek. 21 by 'the just' is meant one who seems just to himself or to others, as it pleases some interpreters? What if 'just' is understood by comparison with others more wicked?—according to that word of Mic. 7:4: the best of them is like a thorn; the most upright is worse than a thorn-hedge.

Latin

2. Quia eius divinae dispensationis exempla quaedam Abrahamus ignorare non poterat, quae Deus omnium oculis obiecerat, primo in diluvio generali, deinde in Sodomorum subversione, tertio in Abimelechi familia, quae omnia supra suo loco produximus. PLAC. Hoc vero non est nodum solvere, sed secare. Quid si Ezech. 21 per justum intelligitur is, qui sibi, aut aliis, justus videtur, ut quibusdam placet interpretibus? Quid si justus intelligitur per comparationem cum aliis nequioribus? juxta illud Mich. 7: 4. optimus eorum est similis spinae; rectissimus prae pineto est.

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