Reformed doctrine does not differ: the dispute is about words, not the thing
The Reformed doctrine set out above is not far from this. On it, all the physical powers needed for acting well, which are simply free choice considered absolutely, remained in man after sin.
Sin brought in only a moral inability, consisting entirely in perverse habits that so besiege mind and will that they can neither know nor love saving good, nor move themselves the least step toward it, until Christ's grace sets them free from those habits.
All this makes plain that the Protestants contradict the Roman School in words but do not in fact deny what the Roman School means to affirm. As we have already said, the dispute here is not about the thing itself but about words.
Latin
LIX. A quo non abludit doctrina Reformatorum supra exposita, juxta quam statuunt omnes potentias Physicas necessarias ad bene agendum, quae non aliud sunt quam ipsum liberum arbitrium absolute consideratum, in homine post peccatum remansisse, & solum per peccatum inductam esse quandam impotentiam moralem, quae tota consistat in pravis habitibus mentem & voluntatem ita obsidentibus, ut bonum salutare nec agnoscere, nec amare possint, aut vel tantillum se ad illud promovere, donec iis per Christi gratiam liberentur. Ex quibus omnibus patet, Protestantes Scholae Romanae quidem verbis contradicere, sed reipsa tamen non negare quod Schola Romana affirmare intendit, & sic, ut jam diximus, non de re ipsa, sed de verbis hic contentionem esse.