Although it must be acknowledged, that with that dung and filth he hath, there is also some gold. Some there are that wholly excuse him, saying, That his words only were improper, but that his sense was orthodox; and that out of hatred to that Doctrine, which extenuateth ⟨p. 554⟩original sin; he would, pretending the Scripture for his Rule, use substantive expressions, to declare the nature of it. But whatsoever his end may be, certainly his sense and opinion, as declared in his words, is justly to be condemned and exploded. For by Adam's fall he maketh a substantial change to be made upon a man; That the Image of God is turned into the image of the Devil, not accidentally, but substantially; as when wine is made vinegar, or when the parts of a statue, or house that were built in some comely harmony, representing some glorious thing, they should be pulled down, and built into another deformed shape. As suppose the Image of some comely person should be pulled in pieces, and made the image of an horrible Dragon or Serpent. He distinguisheth of the material substance of a man, and his formal; He granteth, That the material substance of a man, still remaineth our body, and parts thereof, but the formal substance is altered. As when a vessel that was once made a vessel of honour, is afterwards made a vessel of dishonour; the material substance is the same, but not the formal. He doth no ways endure, that we should call original sin an accident; for he saith, This sin is a transcendent, and is in all predicaments; it's sometimes a quality, sometimes an action, &c. sometimes a substance. Neither will he distinguish between the substance, of a man, and his sin adhering thereto, between the subject and the privation in it, between the abstract and concrete: God (he saith) is angry with concretes, punisheth concretes, not abstracts; and therefore he saith, Those that distinguish between the substance of a man and his sin, do as the Alchemists separating from the oil, oleity; from a stone, lapideity; so these from Adam, Adameity. Thus he, and much more. But certainly herein he betrayeth horrible ignorance in Philosophy and Theology; for both these will necessitate us to distinguish between the substance of a man, and the sinful privation in him; otherwise Christ could not have taken the same nature with us upon him, sin only excepted;
Although it must be acknowledged, that with that dung and filth he hath, there is also some gold. Some there are that wholly excuse him, saying, That his words only were improper, but that his sense was orthodox; and that out of hatred to that Doctrine, which extenuateth ⟨p. 554⟩original sinne; he would, pretending the Scripture for his Rule, use substantive expressions, to declare the nature of it. But whatsoever his end may be, certainly his sense and opinion, as declared in his words, is justly to be condemned and exploded. For by Adam's fall he maketh a substantial change to be made upon a man; That the Image of God is turned into the image of the Devil, not accidentally, but substantially; as when wine is made vinegar, or when the parts of a statue, or house that were built in some comely harmony, representing some glorious thing, they should be pulled down, and built into another deformed shape. As suppose the Image of some comely person should be pulled in pieces, and made the image of an horrible Dragon or Serpent. He distinguisheth of the material substance of a man, and his formal; He granteth, That the matrial substance of a man, still remaineth our body, and parts thereof, but the formal substance is altered. As when a vessel that was once made a vessel of honour, is afterwards made a vessel of dishonour; the material substance is the same, but not the formal. He doth no wayes endure, that we should call original sinne an accident; for he saith, This sinne is a transcendent, and is in all predicaments; it's sometimes a quality, sometimes an action, &c. sometimes a substance. Neither will he distinguish between the substance, of a man, and his sin adhering thereto, between the subject and the privation in it, between the abstract and concrete: God (he saith) is angry with concretes, punisheth concretes, not abstracts; and therefore he saith, Those that distinguish between the substance of a man and his sinne, do as the Alchimists separating from the oyl, oleity; from a stone, lapideity; so these from Adam, Adameity. Thus he, and much more. But certainly herein he betrayeth horrible ignorance in Philosophy and Theology; for both these will necessitate us to distinguish between the substance of a man, and the sinfull privation in him; otherwise Christ could not have taken the same nature with us upon him, sinne only excepted;
