On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §504 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 9: not the same subtlety; not local motion

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

ld indeed be the same subtlety, if my argument could be accommodated equally to corruption and to actual sin: but now since this subtlety of the learned man is situated in an argument very diverse from mine, I cannot understand why it is called the same subtlety, or what it harms in my arguments? Although it has no force. For who does not see that by that entry of sin is not to be understood an entry situated in local motion which is proper to bodies and substances?

Latin

PLAC. Eadem quidem esset subtilitas, si posset argumentum meum aeque corruptioni ac peccato actuali accommodari: nunc vero cum haec viri docti subtilitas in argumento a meo valde diverso sita sit, intelligere non possum, cur eadem subtilitas dicatur, aut quid argumentis meis noceat? Quanquam vim nullam habet. Quis enim non videt per illum peccati introitum non esse intelligendum introitum situm in motu locali qui proprius est corporum & substantiarum?

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