On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §513 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 9: Pighius defense; pious ear refuses sins entered Christ

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

s's exposition could not have been defended more carefully than it is by the learned man in this place: for he moves no stone that he may wrest from the orthodox the argument which they are accustomed to draw against Pelagius and Pighius from the Apostle's words, through one man sin entered into the world. But he labors in vain. Truth cannot be stormed. What is it, why the learned man demands to be granted to himself, that the compound eiselthein differs in signification not at all from the simple elthein? Or who will bear one saying that our sins entered into Christ, or that through us sin entered into Christ? Does not a pious conscience flee such a locution?

Latin

PLAC. Non potuit diligentius Pighii expositio defendi, quam sit a viro docto hoc quidem in loco: nullum enim lapidem non movet ut extorqueat e manibus orthodoxorum argumentum, quod soliti sunt adversus Pelagium & Pighium ex verbis Apostoli ducere, per unum hominem peccatum introiit in mundum. Sed frustra laborat. Expugnari veritas non potest. Quid est, quare sibi dari Vir doctus postulet, compositum εἰσελθεῖν, nihil significatione differre a simplici ἐλθεῖν? Aut quis ferat dicentem peccata nostra introiisse in Christum, aut per nos peccatum intrasse in Christum? Nonne talem locutionem pia refugit conscientia?

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