Institutions of Christian religion framed out of Gods word, and the writings of the best diuines, methodically handled by questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know, or practise the will of God. Written in Latin by William Bucanus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Lausanna. And published in English by Robert Hill, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and Fellow of Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge, for the benefit of our English nation, to which is added in the end the practise of papists against Protestant princes.

The tenth common Place, of originall Righteousnesse.

What doctrine hath affinitie with the former touching the image of God?

THe doctrine of originall righteousnesse, or of the first in∣tegritie of our nature.

Was the first man created of God in originall righteousnesse?

He was: which is proued by the doctrine going before. For Gen. 1.27. Moses saith: He made man after his owne image, male and fe∣male made he them. Now we said, that the most speciall part of that image was that pourtraiture of the righteousnesse and holinesse of God, which was made in man, whereof this was a signe that they walked naked, and were not ashamed, Gen. 2.24.

Moreouer, Gen. 2.31. immediatly after the creation of Man, Moses addeth presently: And they were very good. To this purpose maketh that Eph. 4.24. Put ye on the new man, which after God is created in true righteousnesse and holinesse.

Whether (if man had stood in that his originall righteousnesse) should he haue had neede of Christ the Mediator?

Not that he might be reconciled to God, and be healed of his sinne, (which he had not yet committed) but by whom so long as he would, he might be kept in the fauour of God, and be preserued from sin: for that sentence of Christ is alwaies true, without me ye can do nothing, Ioh. 15.5.

That same originall righteousnesse wherein Adam was created, was it a substance or an accident?

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.

What then was that originall righteousnesse?

1. The light in the mind of man, whereby he knew God and his will.

2. The ingrauing of the law of God in his heart, wherby he was moued to obey him, and the integritie of the whole man, whereby the spirit was subiect to, and obeyed God, the soule was subiect to and obeied the spirit, the body was subiect to the soule and obei∣ed it.

3. The acceptation of the whole man, whereby he was accepta∣ble and well pleasing to God, but yet so as man might loose it, as the very euent shewed.

Why is it called originall?

Because it was natural, & the first man was created in it, & vnto it: not as a priuate person, but as the stocke and roote of all mankind.a 1.1

Now say that Adam had stood in that originall righteousnesse, should it haue bene deriued to all his posteritie?

It should: 1. because it was the righteousnes of mans nature, and not the righteousnes of a priuate person.

2. Because the contrary to it, namely original sinne, was deriued by Adams meanes to all his posteritie (Christ onely excepted.)

3. Because euery like begets his like in nature and kind: which notwithstanding should not haue bene by force of propagatiō, but by the appointment of God, as it is said afore of originall sinne.

Whether should the grace of Christ haue ensued that originall righteousnesse?

Yes certainely: for if God in the law doth promise his grace to the children of the godlya 1.2: how much more would he haue pursued Adam & his posteritie with that grace, if they had stood in godlines?

What then? should they haue bene so confirmed in grace, as that they could sinne no more?

Surely the condition of the children and of the posteritie should not haue bene more perfect and better, then the condition of our first parents, who were created by the hand of God himselfe, but mutably good: and this is reserued for the life to come, that a man should be without all danger of sinning.

What is the vse of this doctrine?

That we should bewaile the losse of our excellent estate in Adam: and that we should so much the more eagerly and earnestly by faith imbrace Christ the restorer of the image of God, which in time to come shall be immutable.

What makes against this doctrine of originall iustice?

1. The dottage of Flaccus Illyricus, who taught, that originall iustice and original sin was a substance in Adam, & not an accident.

2. The error of the Papists, who maintaine, that originall iustice (wherewith as they say the first man was made,) was not his natural condition, but a supernaturall gift, and that man lost neither free-will, nor other gifts of nature, but onely supernaturall.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Gen. 1.17. Ephes. 4.24.
• a 1.2

  Exod 20.6.