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

Prop. 4. Seeing therefore that the soul cometh to work rationally by the successive alteration of the complexion of the body, as the organs are disposed, which in some is sooner, in some later, it is impossible to give not only the metaphysical indivisible instant, but even the moral time wherein a child doth first begin to have an actual sin. As we cannot observe it in our selves when we first had any use of reason, so neither can we in another; and therefore the limiting of the works of understanding, to the fourth, sixth or seven years, is altogether uncertain, only we are to conclude, That children sin long before they know what sin is, or can understand what it is to offend God, for those peevish […] vexations which are in little ones, even while sucking, are not to be freed […] some kind of guilt, for such things would not have been in the state of innocent•: And if you say, Why should we think those are sins, seeing they do not flew from the use of reason and free-will? Therefore.

Prop. 4. Seeing therefore that the soul cometh to work rationally by the successive alteration of the complexion of the body, as the organs are disposed, which in some is sooner, in some later, it is impossible to give not only the metaphysical indivisible instant, but even the moral time wherein a child doth first begin to have an actual sinne. As we cannot observe it in our selves when we first had any use of reason, so neither can we in another; and therefore the limiting of the works of understanding, to the fourth, sixth or seven years, is altogether uncertain, only we are to conclude, That children sinne long before they know what sinne is, or can understand what it is to offend God, for those peevish 〈…〉 vexations which are in little ones, even while sucking, are not to be freed 〈…〉 some kind of guilt, for such things would not have been in the state of innocent•: And if you say, Why should we think those are sins, seeing they do not flew from the use of reason and free-will? Therefore.

The fifth Proposition is, That contrariety to the Law of God is of the essence of a sin, not voluntariness in actu secundo (as they say) as if immediately elicited by the will; For habitual sins are not voluntary in that, but because they are the effect produced by voluntary acts of sinning that did precede, therefore they have as much voluntariness, as is required to make an habitual sin, and thus original sin with the immediate effects that flow thence, have as much voluntariness as is required to make them sins, for as habitual sins are therefore sins, because contracted by our own personal will, so original sin is voluntary, because descending upon as by his will, who was our Head, both quoad esse naturale, and morale, as it is in time more to be explained: Therefore that Position of Socinians and others, That nothing can be a sin which is not committed by the voluntary consent of our own personal will, is to be rejected as that false foundation upon which they build so many erroneous Doctrines.