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

This Argument (at the first view) hath likewise some colour, but upon the examination of it, it will quickly vanish: I shall not answer in a large dispute about that famous Question, Whether the same thing may be a sin and a punishment? Or, whether God doth punish one sin with another, but shall speak as much, briefly, as is convenient for this Objection. And

First, You must know that Arminius began to dislike this Doctrine of original sinne (Respons. ad Artic. 31.) which was mentioned in their public Catechism, upon this very reason, because it was a punishment; and he gave this Reason to the Minister then conferring with him, Because if God did punish Adam's sin with this sin, then he must punish this with another, and that other with another, and so there must be a processus in infinitum. But his followers the Remonstrants (in their Apology for their Confession contra Censuram) seem to disclaim this opinion, That our original corruption is either malum culpae, or poenae, properly so called, Because where there is an evil of punishment, it must be for some sin: But Infants have committed no voluntary sin, and therefore could not deserve such a punishment. So that they profess themselves to be of Zuinglius his mind, whether he retracted it, or not afterwards they are not certain, viz. That it is a morbus, a vitium, a languor, an imbecility of nature, but neither the evil of sin or punishment. Some Papists as Pighius, Catharinus, Mayro, and some Scotists hold, That native pollution to be no sin, because it's a punishment, and that for Adam's sin imputed to all, concluding on this, That it cannot be a sin, because it's a punishment. The Socinians they say, The necessity of dying with other punishments, is the punishment of Adam's sin; and therefore that repugnancy and contrariety which is between the flesh and the Spirit, is from our very Creation; The sensitive appetite rebels against the rational, from the very first Creation of man, and would have been whether Adam had sinned or no; yea, it was from this vehement opposition of the appetite to reason, that he did sin.

First, You must know that Arminius began to dislike this Doctrine of original sinne (Respons. ad Artic. 31.) which was mentioned in their publique Catechism, upon this very reason, because it was a punishment; and he gave this Reason to the Minister then conferring with him, Because if God did punish Adam's sinne with this sinne, then he must punish this with another, and that other with another, and so there must be a processus in infinitum. But his followers the Remonstrants (in their Apology for their Confession contra Censuram) seem to disclaim this opinion, That our original corruption is either malum culpae, or poenae, properly so called, Because where there is an evil of punishment, it must be for some sinne: But Infants have committed no voluntary sinne, and therefore could not deserve such a punishment. So that they profess themselves to be of Zuinglius his mind, whether he retracted it, or not afterwards they are not certain, viz. That it is a morbus, a vitium, a languor, an imbecillity of nature, but neither the evil of sinne or punishment. Some Papists as Pighius, Catharinus, Mayro, and some Scotists hold, That native pollution to be no sinne, because it's a punishment, and that for Adam's sinne imputed to all, concluding on this, That it cannot be a sinne, because it's a punishment. The Socinians they say, The necessity of dying with other punishments, is the punishment of Adam's sinne; and therefore that repugnancy and contrariety which is between the flesh and the Spirit, is from our very Creation; The sensitive appetite rebels against the rational, from the very first Creation of man, and would have been whether Adam had sinned or no; yea, it was from this vehement opposition of the appetite to reason, that he did sin.