SECT. V.
IN the fourth place, there are those yet who draw a more narrow line in this mat∣ter, 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 sinne properly, but some action repugning to the word of God; and because original sinne can∣not be an action, therefore (say they) it's not properly a sinne; In which sense they deny habits of sinne 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 alwayes 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 sinne. They say indeed a thing may repugn the Law of God three wayes; Either, Efficienter, so the Devils and wicked men do, yet they are not sinnes. 2. Materially, and thus the act of every sinne doth. 3. Formally, and so the obliquity in the act only doth; and this they make only truly and properly a sinne; 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 sinne 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 sinne. It is true, in assigning the proper notion