| Note 0 |
By the way: And this opinion and determination might light toward better answer to that rational objection made against Iohns Baptism in the Martyr Iustins time, by some who wondred how he could minister and the people receive baptism under the Law, they being under the Law, for which they had no Law, and yet not be thereby transgressors of the Law. Si Baptismus Iohannis (say they) non secundum legem fuit, ut certè non fuit (they took this for granted, and to them the doubt thereby hardly soluble) quomodo ergo praeter legem non fuit? & quomodò ab his qui sub lege vivebant receptus fuit? (they might well say so, considering how that Nation was bound to their Law) Quomodò autem non violatores leges fuêre (NONLATINALPHABET) qui legi subditi cum essent, praeter legem Baptismum susceperunt. Sin sub lege Baptismus gratiae obtinuit (for that I doubt not is the sense, though Langius translates otherwise ) qui neque secundum legem, neque supra legem, neque praeter legem dictus, NONLATINALPHABET secundum quid extitisse reperietur? Quaestion. ad Orthod. 38. pa. 413. The answer there given is, 'Twas praevious to the Gospel, therefore above the Law, for it assoyled not legall transgressors, &c. Nor does this assoil the doubt; nor them very well from being NONLATINALPHABET, besides the Law, living under it. The fairer, clearer, fuller answer might be: All this was (taking in expressions and limitations before) according to the Law, and then what inconvenience could follow, or difficulties remain? |
By the Way: And this opinion and determination might Light towards better answer to that rational objection made against Iohns Baptism in the Martyr Iustins time, by Some who wondered how he could minister and the people receive Baptism under the Law, they being under the Law, for which they had no Law, and yet not be thereby transgressors of the Law. Si Baptismus John (say they) non secundum legem fuit, ut certè non fuit (they took this for granted, and to them the doubt thereby hardly soluble) quomodo ergo praeter legem non fuit? & quomodò ab his qui sub lege vivebant Receptus fuit? (they might well say so, considering how that nation was bound to their Law) Quomodò autem non Violatori leges fuêre () qui Legi Subditi cum essent, praeter legem Baptism susceperunt. since sub lege Baptismus Gratiae obtinuit (for that I doubt not is the sense, though Langius translates otherwise) qui neque secundum legem, neque supra legem, neque praeter legem dictus, secundum quid extitisse reperietur? Question. ad Orthodoxy. 38. Paul. 413. The answer there given is, 'Twas previous to the Gospel, Therefore above the Law, for it assoiled not Legal transgressors, etc. Nor does this assoil the doubt; nor them very well from being, beside the Law, living under it. The Fairer, clearer, fuller answer might be: All this was (taking in expressions and limitations before) according to the Law, and then what inconvenience could follow, or difficulties remain? |
p-acp dt n1: cc d n1 cc n1 vmd vvi p-acp jc n1 p-acp d j n1 vvn p-acp npg1 n1 p-acp dt n1 npg1 n1, p-acp d r-crq vvd c-crq pns31 vmd vvi cc dt n1 vvb n1 p-acp dt n1, pns32 vbg p-acp dt n1, p-acp r-crq pns32 vhd dx n1, cc av xx vbi av n2 pp-f dt n1. fw-mi fw-la np1 (vvb pns32) fw-fr fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-fr fw-fr fw-la (pns32 vvd d c-acp vvd, cc p-acp pno32 dt n1 av av j) fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la? cc fw-la fw-la png31 fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la? (pns32 vmd av vvi av, vvg c-crq d n1 vbds vvn p-acp po32 n1) fw-la fw-la fw-la n2 fw-la fw-la () fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la n-jn, fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la. n1 fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la (p-acp cst pns11 vvb xx vbz dt n1, cs np1 vvz av) fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la n1 fw-la? n1. fw-la n1. crd n1. crd dt n1 a-acp vvn vbz, pn31|vbds j p-acp dt n1, av p-acp dt n1, c-acp pn31 vvd xx j n2, av ccx vdz d vvi dt n1; ccx dt j av p-acp vbg, p-acp dt n1, vvg p-acp pn31. dt jc, jc, jc n1 vmd vbi: d d vbds (vvg p-acp n2 cc n2 p-acp) vvg p-acp dt n1, cc av q-crq n1 vmd vvi, cc n2 vvi? |
