Lastly, Original sin, as the root of all; In which sense the Apostle James Chap. 1. 14. calleth it likewise lust. Some learned men there are, that do not like it should be said original sin is forbidden by the Law of God, (as Molineus, Rivet. in Expos. Dec. Martinius in Exposit. Decal) although they grant the Law doth damn it and judge it. But surely their meaning is no more, as Martinius doth expressly afterwards affirm, than that original sin is not primarily and directly forbidden, but secondarily and by consequent; As also that it is thus forbidden, that we should not obey but resist it, as Rivet. But whereas they reason, That a prohibition is not of those things that already are present in us, but of what is future or may be, that is no ways solid, because past sins and present actual sins, are truly forbidden by the Law, although the sin past cannot but be past, and the sin present cannot but be present, because quicquid est, quando est, necesse est esse. Other learned men, though they grant ⟨p. 157⟩original sin is truly and properly forbidden by the Law of God, yet they say, It is not in this Commandment, partly because it's forbidden in every Commandment, for where any branch of sin is forbidden, there the root also is forbidden, and where pure streams of holiness are required, there also a pure fountain of holiness; Original righteousness is commanded, and that partly because this tenth Commandment doth belong to the second Table only, whereas original sin is not only the cause of evil lusts towards man, but also towards God. Now in this we shall not much disagree; For it must be granted, That seeing an holy heart is required in every particular command, it followeth, That an evil sinful heart is forbidden in every command; and for the later we grant also, That original sin is not forbidden in this last Commandment in the universal latitude and utmost extent of it, but so far as it doth break out in sinful lusts towards man.
Lastly, Original sinne, as the root of all; In which sense the Apostle James Chap. 1. 14. calleth it likewise lust. Some learned men there are, that do not like it should be said original sinne is forbidden by the Law of God, (as Molineus, Rivet. in Expos. Dec. Martinius in Exposit. Decal) although they grant the Law doth damn it and judge it. But surely their meaning is no more, as Martinius doth expresly afterwards affirm, than that original sin is not primarily and directly forbidden, but secondarily and by consequent; As also that it is thus forbidden, that we should not obey but resist it, as Rivet. But whereas they reason, That a prohibition is not of those things that already are present in us, but of what is future or may be, that is no wayes solid, because past sins and present actual sins, are truly forbidden by the Law, although the sinne past cannot but be past, and the sinne present cannot but be present, because quicquid est, quando est, necesse est esse. Other learned men, though they grant ⟨p. 157⟩original sinne is truly and properly forbidden by the Law of God, yet they say, It is not in this Commandment, partly because it's forbidden in every Commandment, for where any branch of sin is forbidden, there the root also is forbidden, and where pure streams of holiness are required, there also a pure fountain of holiness; Original righteousness is commanded, and that partly because this tenth Commandment doth belong to the second Table onely, whereas original sinne is not onely the cause of evil lusts towards man, but also towards God. Now in this we shall not much disagree; For it must be granted, That seeing an holy heart is required in every particular command, it followeth, That an evil sinfull heart is forbidden in every command; and for the later we grant also, That original sinne is not forbidden in this last Commandment in the universal latitude and utmost extent of it, but so farre as it doth break out in sinfull lusts towards man.
