On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §61 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 7: Garissoles cannot escape the circular argument he alleged

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

And yet if there were one, it ought to be called not so much a circle condemned by the philosophers as a regress praised by the same: for it would consist of two demonstrations, one 'that,' the other 'because' — the former producing a distinct knowledge of the effect, the latter a confused knowledge of the cause... But when Doctor Garissoles had objected this same circularity to himself, he could not extricate himself from it. For he touched only the later reason; the prior one, on which the circle hung, he wrapped in deep silence. I ask, therefore, from his mind: does the Apostle in verse 12 prove that all are sentenced to death because Adam's sin is imputed to them? If you say yes, the circular argumentation remains: for at once in verses 13 and 14 he will prove that Adam's sin is imputed to all, because all are sentenced to death. If you deny it, you do indeed remove the circle; but neither did Doctor Garissoles deny that, nor did he attempt anything of the kind in order to lead himself out of that circle: he therefore did the very thing of which he falsely accused us — he made of the divine Apostle, as he speaks, an inept circular arguer.

Latin

quanquam si esset, non tam circulus a Philosophis damnatus, quam regressus ab iisdem laudatus dici deberet: constaret enim ex duabus demonstrationibus, altera τὸ ὅτι, altera τὸ διότι, illa pariente distinctam effectus, hac confusam causae notitiam. Eandem autem circulationem cum ipse sibi objecisset D. G. expedire sese ex ea non potuit. Posteriorem enim tantum rationem attigit, priorem, ex qua pendebat circulus, alto involvit silentio. Peto igitur ex ejus mente, num Apostolus probet vs. 12. omnes esse morti addictos, quia peccatum Adae ipsis imputatur? Si ais, manet circularis argumentatio: statim enim vs. 13. & 14. probabit omnibus peccatum Adae imputari, quia omnes sunt morti addicti. Si negas, tollis quidem circulum; sed neque id negavit D. G. neque ut se ex eo circulo educeret, quicquam ejusmodi tentavit: fecit ergo id, cujus nos falso accusabat, ex Apostolo divino ineptum, ut loquitur, circulatorem.

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