A30249:292
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.
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 ⟨p. 109⟩come to show, that this is not merely a law, but a covenant, and so by that means there is a communicating of Adams sin unto his posterity. And, indeed, if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing, there could be no more reason, why Adams sin should be made ours, then the sins of our immediate parents are made ours. I know Peter Martyr (and he quoteth Bucer) is of a mind, that the sins of the immediate parents are made the sins of the posterity; and Austin inclineth much to that way: but this may serve to confute it, that the Apostle, Rom. 5. doth still lay death upon one mans disobedience. Now, if our parents and ancestors were as full a cause as Adam was, why should the accusation be still laid upon him? But of this more hereafter.
5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity. And certainly 1wee must conclude, that this positive command was universall, and that Adam is here taken collectively; for, although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given, yet it was not personall, but to Adam as an head, or common person: Hence