Vindiciæ legis

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, Illi garriant, 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, we will say as Austin to the Hereticks, Illi garriant, 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 ⟨p. 106⟩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 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,