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

In the next place therefore, ¹this is thought a powerful weapon against this Truth, viz. It cannot be truly and properly a sin, because it is not against any Law. The Apostle makes contrariety to the Law, to be of the essence of sin: If therefore Infants new-born, or before they are born, are not under a Law, then they are not capable of any sin; and truly it hath a seeming absurdity to say, Infants are commanded by Gods Law, to be born without sin, seeing that is no more in their power than to be born. This consideration did press that learned Divine Molinaus (Enodatio graviss. Quaest. de peccato origin. pag. 130.) to acknowledge, That no such Law was upon Infants, and therefore he saith, That the Law doth condemn original sin, but not prohibit it. But this seemeth very strange, For how can the Law condemn a thing, but because it is against it? And how can it be against it, but because it doth prohibit? If therefore the meaning of that learned man be, that original sin is not immediately and proximely forbidden, that is readily granted, for so only actual sins are, but mediately and remotely, both the habits of sin, and original, must necessarily be prohibited, if they be condemned. The learned Vossius also affirmeth, That original sin is not forbidden by the moral Law, though he confesseth it is by the natural Law, which was at first in the Creation of man, but that primordial and original Law is the same for substance with the moral, though differing in some respects.

In the next place therefore, ¹this is thought a powerfull weapon against this Truth, viz. It cannot be truly and properly a sinne, because it is not against any Law. The Apostle makes contrariety to the Law, to be of the essence of sinne: If therefore Infants new-born, or before they are born, are not under a Law, then they are not capable of any sinne; and truly it hath a seeming absurdity to say, Infants are commanded by Gods Law, to be born without sinne, seeing that is no more in their power than to be born. This consideration did press that learned Divine Molinaus (Enodatio graviss. Quaest. de peccato origin. pag. 130.) to acknowledge, That no such Law was upon Infants, and therefore he saith, That the Law doth condemn original sinne, but not prohibit it. But this seemeth very strange, For how can the Law condemn a thing, but because it is against it? And how can it be against it, but because it doth prohibit? If therefore the meaning of that learned man be, that original sinne is not immediately and proximely forbidden, that is readily granted, for so only actual sins are, but mediately and remotely, both the habits of sinne, and original, must necessarily be prohibited, if they be condemned. The learned Vossius also affirmeth, That original sinne is not forbidden by the moral Law, though he confesseth it is by the natural Law, which was at first in the Creation of man, but that primordial and original Law is the same for substance with the moral, though differing in some respects.