On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §621 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 9: Resp — hard to see how that proves Adam's-sin imputation; no confused hypostasis

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

It is hard enough to see and say how the force of this reason assigns the imputation of Adam's sin. For either I am far wrong, or none of those who fight for this imputation ever dreamed that his own person, or any other man's, is confused with Adam's person, or so indistinct as to have coalesced into one hypostasis with him. That cannot even be conceived in the mind. Etc.

Latin

GAR. Resp. Huius rationis vim satis ad assignandam peccati Adami imputationem videre difficile est & dicere. Nam aut longe fallor, aut nemo eorum qui pro hac imputatione pugnant, unquam somniavit personam suam, vel alterius cuiuscumque hominis, esse confusam cum persona Adami, aut ita indistinctam, ut in unum ὑπόστασιν cum ea coaluerit. Hoc ne quidem animo concipi potest. &c.

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