A30249:297
Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…
Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians in XXX lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians in XXX lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...
London: printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1647
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.
But whole Adam was in innocency immortal:
But whole Adam was in innocency immortall:
Therefore all and every part, even whole man was liable to death by sin. But what Logician doth not see a great deal more foisted into the Conclusion, then was in the Premises? Whole Adam was to be mortalized, therefore all and every part. What a non sequitur is here? That is true of the whole; as it is the whole, which is not true of every part. If I should say, Whole Christ dyed, (for death is of the concrete, the person) therefore all and every part of Christ died, therefore his divine nature died; this would be a strange inference: yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built. Man is said to be mortal, whole man dieth, therefore every part of man dieth. There is difference between totum and totalii as, the whole, and every part of that whole. It's true, death doth bring the compositum, the person, to a non-entity, but not every part of that compositum to a non-entity.
Therefore all and every part, even whole man was lyable to death by sin. But what Logician doth not see a great deale more foisted into the Conclusion, then was in the Premises? Whole Adam was to be mortaliz'd, therefore all and every part. What a non sequitur is here? That is true of the whole; as it is the whole, which is not true of every part. If I should say, Whole Christ dyed, (for death is of the concrete, the person) therefore all and every part of Christ died, therefore his divine nature died; this would be a strange inference: yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built. Man is said to be mortall, whole man dieth, therefore every part of man dieth. There is difference between totum and totalii as, the whole, and every part of that whole. It's true, death doth bring the compositum, the person, to a non-entity, but not every part of that compositum to a non-entity.