On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §667 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 10: .2 — same duration logic would also bar imputing Christ’s actual obedience

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

he argument which is here used against the imputation of Adam’s sin, someone could use no less against the imputation of Christ’s actual obedience.

For if it is rightly gathered that Adam’s disobedience was not imputed until the law, because it did not endure until the law: why may it not also be legitimately gathered that Christ’s actual obedience, by which he showed himself obedient unto death, can in no way be imputed to us, because it did not last until our times?

Latin

GAR. 2. Argumento quod hic usurpatur adversus imputationem peccati Adae, non minus uti poterit aliquis adversus imputationem actualis obedientiae Christi. Nam si recte colligitur inobedientiam Adami non fuisse imputatam usque ad legem, quia non perduravit usque ad legem: quidni etiam legitime colligatur, actualem Christi obedientiam, qua se obedientem praestitit usque ad mortem, nobis nequaquam imputari posse, quia non duravit usque ad nostra tempora?

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