A27059:76
Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of…
Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of original sin as from our nearer parents : written long ago for a more private use, and now published (with a preface) upon the invitation of Dr. T. Tully / by Richard Baxter.Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of original sin as from our neerer parents : written long ago for a more private use, and now published (with a preface) upon the invitation of Dr. T. Tullie / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Robert Gibbs, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. How come you to know the mind of a man, whom I suppose you never, saw, so well as to add your [Nec dubito quin Imputatam Christi Justitiam incluserit?] Am I not fittest to tell you what I include?
3. Why turn you a Logical case of Defining, into a Theological de re? Justitia Christi Imputata is one thing, and the Definition of Justice, or Imputation, is another.
4. Are you in good sadness desirous to know whom I mean? I must think so: But why did you not as earnestly ask of the rest, What Rulers I mean, and what people I mean, &c. Is it not enough to describe them, unless I name them? But I will tell you as much of my meaning as I know my self.
My meaning is, that if the question be, What is the signification of this or that Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Persian, Greek word, in the Text and Versions of the Scripture, ⟨p. 46⟩or what such a proverbial speech doth signify? and so of Topography, Genealogy, Chronology, &c. one excellent Hebrician, &c. well seen in those studies, should be believed before the majority of all the Boys, Students, Preachers, that never understood those things: Must I name them? is there no remedy? Why I mean such a one as Pagnine, Montanus, Buxtorf, &c. for the Hebrew: such a one as Erpenius, Dr. Pocock, &c. for the Arabic: such a one as Scaliger, Blondel, Usher, Broughton, &c. for Chronology, &c. If it be a controversy in Geometry, I would believe Dr. Wallis, &c. if in Anatomy, Dr. Willis, Dr. Lower, Dr. Needham, before a thousand that are therein unstudied: yea, if it were a Magistrate, or Bishop, that were of another mind. In Metaphysics, I will believe or regard one Suarez, Hurtado, Meurisse, Schiebler, Dr. Barlow, before a thousand that are therein ignorant: in Physics, I more regard one Aristotle, Scotus, Honoratus Faber, Campanella, Mr. Boyle, &c. before all them that never studied them: And in Logic, I regard one Aristotle, Ramus, Dietericus, Burgersdicius, Hurtado, &c. before all that never studied Logic, of what Coat or Calling soever. Accordingly in Method and Defining, I prefer one such Divine as Sohnius, Cluto, Wendeline, Amesius,