A77854:295
Vindiciæ legis
Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.
London: printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1646
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.
What of Adam was immortal through innocency, was to be mortalized by transgression:
What of Adam was immortall through innocency, was to be mortaliz'd by transgression:
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 dyed, therefore his divine nature dyed; 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 totalitas, 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 dyed, therefore his divine nature dyed; 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 totalitas, 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.