On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §88 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 8: Immediate imputation needs precise actual sin

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

Why then does he not linger on that? Because, he says, whether cut off from that corruption or joined with it, it is still understood to be designated — and that is enough for our cause. No: if you are defending the cause of immediate imputation, that is not enough. Actual sin must be imputed as cut off from the corruption, if that corruption is properly the penalty of the imputed sin. For the same sin cannot be the penalty of itself — not even a penalty properly so called.

Latin

Cur vero id non moratur? Etenim, inquit, sive praecisum ab illa corruptione, sive conjunctum cum ea, semper tamen designari intelligitur, quod ad causam nostram satis est. Immo vero si causam defendis imputationis immediatae, id non satis est. oportet enim sic imputari peccatum actuale praecisum à corruptione, siquidem haec est illius imputati poena proprie dicta. non potest enim idem peccatum esse poena sui ipsius, praesertim poena proprie dicta.

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