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

IN the fourth place, there are those yet who draw a more narrow line in this matter, than the former: For when this Question is put, Whether original inherent sin be truly and properly a sin? They then distinguish between Peccatum and Vitium; It is vitium (say they) but not peccatum, or when it is called peccatum, it is in a large sense, not strictly and properly; For with these, nothing is a sin properly, but some action repugning to the word of God; and because original sin cannot be an action, therefore (say they) it's not properly a sin; In which sense they deny habits of sin to be peccata, but only vitia. Though this be to play with words, seeing the same thing is intended; And although Austin abstaineth much from the word peccatum, as if that always did suppose a reatus, yet that is a needless scrupulosity, men may use words as they please; Therefore Hierom thought, (Vide Whitak. de peccato orig. lib. 3. cap 6.) vitium was more than peccatum, contrary to Austins notion, when he said, Some man might be found without vice, but not without sin. They say indeed a thing may repugn the Law of God three ways; Either, Efficienter, so the Devils and wicked men do, yet they are not sins. 2. Materially, and thus the act of every sin doth. 3. Formally, and so the obliquity in the act only doth; and this they make only truly and properly a sin; But whether this will stand good or no, will be examined in the Objections; As also that Assertion of a learned man, (Molinaus, vide infra.) That original sin is condemned by the Law, but not prohibited, it being absurd (as he thinks) to appoint a Law for one grown up, that he should have been born without sin. It is true, in assigning the proper notion ⟨p. 34⟩of sin to it, hath some great difficulty; Neither doth it become us to be overcurious in this point above what is written, remembering that original sin came in, by desiring too much knowledge. I shall therefore treat of it so far, as it may tend to edification, not to satisfy curiosity. For when Austin was puzzled with such doubts, he brings that known Apology, (Epist. 29.) of one who fell into a deep pit, and being ready to be suffocated, he crieth out to one passing by, to help him out; The man asketh him, How he came in? Do not, saith he, stand disputing of that, but help me out.