A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is

SECT. III.

Two Mistakes removed.

The first is that of Flaccius Illyricus, who because the Scripture useth such concrete and substantive terms about original sin, calling it a man, a body, therefore he erred in a contrary extremity to the Pelagians; and some Pontificians, making original sin not to be an accident, but the essence and substance ⟨p. 80⟩of the soul; but of this more when we come to search out the nature of it; only you must know, that original sin is not the substance of a man, but an universal disease adhering to it; as the Leprosy in a Leper, it's not his body, it's not his corpulent essence; the body is one thing, the Leprosy is another thing; and thus in man, his soul and body are one thing, his original corruption is another thing: Though as in an universal Leprosy, you cannot touch one part of the body, but it is infected; so neither can we name one part of the soul, but it is polluted; we must therefore distinguish between nature and sin, to avoid Flaccianism; yet we must not separate or divide one from the other, to avoid Pelagianism; but of this more in its time.

THe first is that of Flaccius Illyricus, who because the Scripture useth such concrete and substantive terms about original sinne, calling it a man, a body, therefore he erred in a contrary extremity to the Pelagians; and some Pontificians, making original sinne not to be an accident, but the essence and substance ⟨p. 80⟩