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

The last Objection is, That there is no necessity of supposing such an habitual vitiosity in a man; It's enough (say they) that a man be deprived of the Image of God, and when that is lost, of it's own self man's nature is prone to evil; It needs no habitual inclination to weigh him down; as if a wild beast be tied in cords and chains, lose him, untie him, and of himself he will run into wild and untamed actions.

The last Objection is, That there is no necessity of supposing such an habitual vitiosity in a man; It's enough (say they) that a man be deprived of the Image of God, and when that is lost, of it's own self man's nature is prone to evil; It needs no habitual inclination to weigh him down; as if a wild beast be tied in cords and chains, lose him, unty him, and of himself he will runne into wild and untamed actions.

But to answer this:

First, The Papists, they cannot consequentially to their principles say thus; For they hold, That if this Image of God be removed, he doth continue in his pure naturals, there is no sin inhering in him, upon the mere loss of that; For they confess, That although by acting from his ⟨p. 152⟩pure naturals he could not deserve Heaven, or love God as a supernatural end, yet in an inferior way, as the ultimate natural end, so he might love God, and that above all other things.

First, The Papists, they cannot consequentially to their principles say thus; For they hold, That if this Image of God be removed, he doth continue in his pure naturals, there is no sinne inhering in him, upon the meer losse of that; For they confesse, That although by acting from his ⟨p. 152⟩