A30249:324
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.
Questions to be made:
1. Whether this righteousness was natural to Adam, or no? Howsoever 1some have thought this a mere contention of words, and therefore if they were well explained, there would be no great difference; yet the Papists make this a foundation for other great errors: for, grant this righteousness to be supernatural to Adam, as it is to us, then 1. it will follow, That all the motions rising in the Appetite against Reason, are from the constitution of our nature; and so no more sin, then hunger and thirst is. 2. That free-will is still in us, and that we have lost nothing but that which is merely superadded to us. Or they compare this righteousness Adam had, sometimes to an Antidote, which preserves against the deadly effect of poison: sometimes to a bridle, that rules the horse; so that they suppose mans nature would of it self rebel, but only this was given to Adam to check it: sometimes to Samsons hair, whereby he had supernatural strength, but when that was cut off, he had only natural: So that by this doctrine, man, now fallen, should be weaker then he was, but not corrupted. Therefore we must necessarily conclude, that this righteousness was natural to him; not indeed flowing from the principles of nature, for so it was of God, but it was a perfection suitable or connatural to him; it was not above him, as it is now in us. As a blind man that was made to see, though the manner was supernatural, yet to see was a natural perfection.
1. Whether this righteousnesse was naturall to Adam, or no? Howsoever 1some have thought this a meere contention of words, and therefore if they were well explained, there would be no great difference; yet the Papists make this a foundation for other great errours: for, grant this righteousnesse to be supernaturall to Adam, as it is to us, then 1. it will follow, That all the motions rising in the Appetite against Reason, are from the constitution of our nature; and so no more sin, then hunger and thirst is. 2. That free-will is still in us, and that we have lost nothing but that which is meerly superadded to us. Or they compare this righteousnesse Adam had, sometimes to an Antidote, which preserves against the deadly effect of poyson: sometimes to a bridle, that rules the horse; so that they suppose mans nature would of it self rebell, but onely this was given to Adam to check it: sometimes to Sampsons haire, whereby he had supernaturall strength, but when that was cut off, he had onely naturall: So that by this doctrine, man, now fallen, should be weaker then he was, but not corrupted. Therefore we must necessarily conclude, that this righteousnesse was naturall to him; not indeed flowing from the principles of nature, for so it was of God, but it was a perfection sutable or connaturall to him; it was not above him, as it is now in us. As a blind man that was made to see, though the manner was supernaturall, yet to see was a naturall perfection.