A30249:291
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 secondly, that of Austins is good, God would not have suffered sin to be, if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evil: not that God needed sin to show his glory; for he needed no glory from the creature: but it pleased him to permit sin, that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodness might be manifested unto the children of his love. And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations, we will say as Austin to the Heretics, Illigarriant, nos credamus, Let them prate while we believe.
But secondly, that of Austins is good, God would not have suffered sin to be, if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evill: not that God needed sin to shew his glory; for he needed no glory from the creature: but it pleased him to permit sin, that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodnesse might be manifested unto the children of his love. And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations, wee will say as Austine to the Hereticks, Illigarriant, nos credamus, Let them prate while we beleeve.
5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity. And certainly 1we must conclude, that this positive command was universal, and that Adam is here taken collectively; for, although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given, yet it was not personal, but to Adam as an head, or common person: Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him, for whether it be in him, or, in as much as all have sinned, it cometh to the same purpose; for how could all be said to have sinned, but because they were in him? And this is also further to be proved by the commination, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt dye: now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby. Besides, the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law, besides the natural for Adam, do also infer for Adams posterity. It is true, some Divines that do hold a positive law would have been, yet seem to be afraid to affirm fully, that the posterity of Adam would have been tried with the very same commandment of eating the forbidden fruit: but I see no cause of questioning it. Now all this will be further cleared, when we