The Schoolmen (I say) though […] vasalized to Aristotle, and alleging him oftener than Paul, do answer that Argument thus, It is no matter what Aristotle saith in this case, because he knew nothing of original sin. Thus you see they are forced to leave him in this point, and therefore Aristotle is more to be renounced in this point, then any other Philosopher. Grotius also (Comment. in 2d. Luc. v. 21. allegeth several Heathenish ⟨p. 169⟩Authors, who lay down this for a Position, that [Greek or Hebrew], it is implanted and engrafted into man to sin. Tully (lib. 3. Tusc.) doth speak so fully to this purpose, as if he had read what Moses speaketh of man by nature, Simul ac editi sumus in lucem & suscepti in omni continuè pravitate versamur, &c. as soon as ever we are born, we are presently exercised in all manner of evil, Ut poenè in lacte nutricis errorem suxisse videamur, as if we sucked down error with the nurses milk; Here you see he speaketh something like to Moses, when he saith, Gen. 6. That the imagination of the thoughts of our hearts are only evil and that continually; Although at the same time he seemeth to attribute this propensity to evil to wicked manner, and depraved opinions, for there he saith, Nature hath given us of honesty parvulos igniculos, and that there are ingeniis nostris semina innata virtutum. But although some of their wisest men have confessed such a misery and infirmity upon us, yet it may be doubted, Whether they looked upon this, as truly and properly sin, deserving punishment either from God or man; They rather thought all sin must be voluntary: Hence Seneca, Eras si existimas nobiscum nasci vitia supervenerunt ingesta sunt. Indeed in their sad complaints concerning mans birth, and all misery accompanying him, as Austin said, they did rem scire, but causam nescire, they evidently saw we were miserable, but they knew not the cause of it, whereas original sin, according to Scripture light, though not personally voluntary, yet is truly a sin, and maketh a man in a damnable estate; Therefore the word original, when we divide sin into original and actual, is not terminus restrictivus, or diminuens, as when we did divide ens into ens real, and rationis, but terminus specificans, as when animal is divided into rationale and irrational, both properly partaking of the general nature of sin;
The Schoolmen (I say) though 〈…〉 vasalized to Aristotle, and alledging him oftner than Paul, do answer that Argument thus, It is no matter what Aristotle saith in this case, because he knew nothing of original sinne. Thus you see they are forced to leave him in this point, and therefore Aristotle is more to be renounced in this point, then any other Philosopher. Grotius also (Comment. in 2d. Luc. v. 21. alledgeth several Hethenish ⟨p. 169⟩Authors, who lay down this for a Position, that 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, it is implanted and ingraffed into man to sinne. Tully (lib. 3. Tusc.) doth speak so fully to this purpose, as if he had read what Moses speaketh of man by nature, Simul ac editi sumus in lucem & suscepti in omni continuè pravitate versamur, &c. as soon as ever we are born, we are presently exercised in all manner of evil, Vt poenè in lacte nutricis errorem suxisse videamur, as if we sucked down errour with the nurses milk; Here you see he speaketh something like to Moses, when he saith, Gen. 6. That the imagination of the thoughts of our hearts are only evil and that continually; Although at the same time he seemeth to attribute this propensity to evil to wicked manner, and depraved opinions, for there he saith, Nature hath given us of honesty parvulos igniculos, and that there are ingeniis nostris semina innata virtutum. But although some of their wisest men have confessed such a misery and infirmity upon us, yet it may be doubted, Whether they looked upon this, as truly and properly sinne, deserving punishment either from God or man; They rather thought all sinne must be voluntary: Hence Seneca, Erras si existimas nobiscum nasci vitia supervenerunt ingesta sunt. Indeed in their sad complaints concerning mans birth, and all misery accompanying him, as Austin said, they did rem scire, but causam nescire, they evidently saw we were miserable, but they knew not the cause of it, whereas original sin, according to Scripture light, though not personally voluntary, yet is truly a sinne, and maketh a man in a damnable estate; Therefore the word original, when we divide sinne into original and actual, is not terminus restrictivus, or diminuens, as when we did divide ens into ens reale, and rationis, but terminus specificans, as when animal is divided into rationale and irrationale, both properly partaking of the general nature of sinne;
