Likewise 'extinguished' and 'wounded' mean the same in substance
In the same way, when the Protestants say that man's free choice was extinguished and lost through sin, not simply wounded and weakened, with respect to saving and spiritual good, they mean only that after sin no strength is left in man by which he could move toward good of himself. Whatever he is able to do and does in the matter of eternal salvation must not be credited in any part to free choice's own powers, but only to those Christ's grace has newly supplied.
When the theologians of the Roman School, on the other side, contend that man's free choice is not wholly lost but only taken captive, bound and wounded, even in what furthers man's eternal salvation, they do not mean that a sinner's free choice can do anything in pious and saving works without grace, even with difficulty and effort.
They do not even mean to teach that man, roused and helped by grace and as it were freed from chains, cooperates with grace by his own powers rather than by the new powers grace adds. Their meaning is only this: man's natural freedom was lost through sin with respect to no object at all. What happened is that his mind and will are obstructed by perverse qualities sin brought in, so that they do not move toward true and saving good as they should.
On this view those faculties need not be given to us afresh, nor a new free choice created in us. Mind and will need only to be healed of the wounds of sin and helped by grace with new strength added, so that we can act well.
Latin
LVIII. Similiter quum dicunt Protestantes liberum arbitrium in homine per peccatum extinctum & amissum esse, non vero simpliciter sauciatum & attenuatum, respectu boni salutaris atque spiritualis, illud tantum sibi volunt, nullas in homine post peccatum superesse vires quibus ex se in bonum feratur, sed quicquid in salutis aeternae negotio potest & operatur, nulla ex parte tribui debere propriis liberi arbitrii viribus, sed solum illis quas de novo Christi gratia ei suppeditavit. Quum vero contra Scholae Romanae Theologi contendunt liberum hominis arbitrium non esse penitus amissum, sed tantum captivatum, ligatum, & vulneratum, etiam in iis quae salutem aeternam hominis promovent, per id significare nolunt, liberum hominis peccatoris arbitrium in operibus piis atque salutiferis, aliquid licet aegre & difficulter sine gratia posse: imo nequidem docere intendunt hominem per gratiam excitatum & adjutum, & quasi vinculis solutum, propriis viribus illi cooperari, non autem per novas vires quas gratia superaddit: sed hoc duntaxat sibi volunt, naturalem hominis libertatem circa nullum objectum per peccatum amissam esse, sed tantum hominis mentem & voluntatem pravis qualitatibus per peccatum inductis impediri, ne, sicut oportet, ferantur in verum & salutare bonum: adeo ut opus non sit facultates illas de novo nobis dare, & novum quoddam liberum arbitrium in nobis creare, sed solum mentem atque voluntatem a vulneribus peccati sanare, & novis viribus additis auxilio gratiae juvare, ad hoc ut bene agere possimus.