On the Imputation of Adam's First Sin · §99 · Josué de la Place (Placeus)

Chapter 9: Responsio 2 — ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν softens bold Levi speech; not Adam-imputation foundation

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

The second reply, then, as he reports it, is this: the Apostle, foreseeing that what he was about to say about Levi's being tithed in Abraham would seem harsh, forestalled the point by saying, "In Abraham even Levi himself was tithed" — ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, "so to speak." Softening of that kind is used only where the speech is bolder, or more unusual, than one may press hard, or draw a conclusion from by reasoning. This, then, must not be twisted so that from it one gathers that Adam's sin is imputed to all, or so that it is laid under as a foundation for a matter which, of itself, is either obscure, or altogether takes away its own credit.

Latin

Responsio igitur secunda, eo referente, est, Apostolum, quia praevidebat fore, ut durum videretur, quod dicturus erat de decimatione Levi in Abrahamo, praeoccupasse dicendo, In Abrahamo decimatus est & ipse Levi, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ut ita loquar. Quae ratio molliendi non usurpatur, nisi ubi locutio audacior est, aut inusitatior, quam ut eam liceat urgere vehementius, aut ex ea quippiam colligere ratiocinando. Hoc igitur non debet eo traduci, ut inde colligatur peccatum Adami omnibus imputari, aut ut tanquam fundamentum substernatur rei, quae ipsa per se vel obscura est, vel omnino fidem ipsa sibi derogat.

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