On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §482 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 9: proof 1 — through one man is not Adam's actual named

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

You use, as far as I can gather, four arguments. 1. By one man the Apostle understands the first man, namely Adam. Therefore by the sin which entered into the World through one man he understands Adam's first actual sin. I deny that it follows. For the Apostle does not say Adam's sin, but that through Adam sin entered into the World. He considers Adam as the cause of this sin, the World—that is, humans—as the subject: nor did he wish to teach who first sinned in the World (for Eve before Adam, and before her the devil, sinned) but that through Adam the corruption of sin was introduced into all humans.

Latin

Uteris, quantum colligere possum, quatuor argumentis. 1. Per unum hominem Apostolus intelligit primum hominem scilicet Adamum. Ergo per peccatum quod per unum hominem introiit in Mundum intelligit primum peccatum actuale Adami. Nego sequi. Non enim Apostolus dicit Adami peccatum, sed per Adamum peccatum introiisse in Mundum. Adamum considerat ut huius peccati causam, Mundum, id est, homines ut subiectum: nec docere voluit, quis primus in Mundo peccaverit (nam Adamo prior Eva, & hac prior diabolus peccavit) sed in omnes homines per Adamum introductam esse corruptionem peccati.

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