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

Secondly, That although this original sin be commonly called the sin of the nature, yet that is not to be so understood, as if it were not also existent in the person, and so a personal sin. Catharinus (Opusc. casu hominis.) confesseth he doth not understand how original sin can be called the sin of the nature, ⟨p. 413⟩for the nature is an abstract, and it is a Chimerical figment, to say, an universal nature is capable of sin, because Actiones sunt suppositorum; and the late known Enemy to this truth, doth (as it were) triumph in his Arguments against this expression, when it is called, The sin of our Nature (Further Explicat. of the Doctrine of Orig. pag. 493.) For while he is wresting and wrecking the miserable 9th Article of the Church of England, adding and detracting (Procrustus-like) to make it commensurate to his prepossessed imagination (although he should remember, that according to the Civil Law, no credit is to be given to confessions extorted upon the rack) he positively dictates, that sin is an affection of persons, not of natures; The humane nature cannot be said to be drunk or commit adultery, Actiones sunt suppositorum, and sin is a breach of the Law, to which persons not natures are obliged. This Argument I remember is urged also by some against Christs obedience, that the Law did not bind his humane nature, because it was not a person, and therefore the command did not reach to him as he was man, to do this or that. But the answer is very obvious, That although the Law doth immediately bind the persons, yet mediately it doth also the nature, Who can deny, but that the Law to love God, though immediately it be commanding the person, Thou shalt love the Lord, &c? yet thereby the soul of a man is also reached unto, so that hatred of God in the soul, as it is there inherent is forbidden mediately; Otherwise there could be no habitual sins or graces, because the command or threatening did no ways reach to them.

Secondly, That although this original sinne be commonly called the sinne of the nature, yet that is not to be so understood, as if it were not also existent in the person, and so a personal sinne. Catharinus (Opusc. casu hominis.) confesseth he doth not understand how original sinne can be called the sinne of the nature, ⟨p. 413⟩for the nature is an abstract, and it is a Chymerical sigment, to say, an universal nature is capable of sinne, because Actiones sunt suppositorum; and the late known Enemy to this truth, doth (as it were) triumph in his Arguments against this expression, when it is called, The sinne of our Nature (Further Explicat. of the Doctrine of Orig. pag. 493.) For while he is wresting and wrecking the miserable 9th Article of the Church of England, adding and detracting (Procrustus-like) to make it commensurate to his prepossessed imagination (although he should remember, that according to the Civil Law, no credit is to be given to confessions extorted upon the rack) he positively dictates, that sin is an affection of persons, not of natures; The humane nature cannot be said to be drunk or commit adultery, Actiones sunt suppositorum, and sin is a breach of the Law, to which persons not natures are obliged. This Argument I remember is urged also by some against Christs obedience, that the Law did not bind his humane nature, because it was not a person, and therefore the command did not reach to him as he was man, to do this or that. But the answer is very obvious, That although the Law doth immediately bind the persons, yet mediately it doth also the nature, Who can deny, but that the Law to love God, though immediately it be commanding the person, Thou shalt love the Lord, &c? yet thereby the soul of a man is also reached unto, so that hatred of God in the soul, as it is there inherent is forbidden mediately; Otherwise there could be no habitual sins or graces, because the command or threatning did no wayes reach to them.