On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §585 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 9: corruptus in Adamo is not corruptus simpliciter; root before branches

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

I pass over that the learned man uses the fallacy from what is said in a certain respect to what is said simply. For it is one thing to be corrupt in a certain respect, or with this limitation in Adam, another to be corrupt simply or without such a limitation. This does not follow from that, if the reason of that time is had, when Adam was first corrupted: for the corruption of the root or fountain is signified, not of the branches or streams, because they were not yet. But it is prior to be than to be corrupt.

Latin

Taceo Virum doctum uti fallacia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Aliud enim est esse corruptum secundum quid, seu cum hac limitatione in Adamo, aliud esse corruptum simpliciter seu absque eiusmodi limitatione. Hoc ex illo non sequitur, si temporis illius ratio habeatur, cum primum Adamus corruptus fuit: significatur enim corruptio radicis seu fontis, non ramorum aut rivorum, quoniam nondum erant: prius autem est esse quam esse corruptum.

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