To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
It was not a substance, but it was an vprightnesse and integritie in nature, and therefore a qualitie, which may be present or absent, according to the definition of an accident, without the destruction of the subiect, that is, the soule. For these differ, a nature right, and the rightnesse of nature: as much as a right line, and the rightnesse
of the line do differ, because the line is the subiect of the rightnesse. Therefore the soule of Adam was the subiect of that original righ∣teousnesse and integritie, but his soule was not that righteousnesse it selfe.
Againe, it is proper to God to be essentially iust and good, be∣cause God is very goodnes it self, integritie it selfe, and iustice it self. And therefore if that originall righteousnesse of the first man had bene a substance, then man should haue bene called iustice it selfe, which without blasphemie to God cannot be spoken.
Besides the contrary to that originall righteousnesse, to wit, ori∣ginall sin is an accident, because it entred into the nature of man. Now then seeing contraries haue both one genus or generall, it fol∣lowes that original righteousnes was not a substance but an accidēt.
Lastly, seeing the restauration of that image is nothing else but the repairing of new qualities, which is wrought by regeneration, It followeth that originall righteousnes was also a qualitie (wherby the whole man was iust and right) yet indeede such a one as might be lost, as afterwards was proued by the fall of man.