A64003:133
A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certain doubts concerning predestination together with an examination…A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination…
A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certain doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twice ...A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twisse ...
London: printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646
AN EXAMINATION of a Treatise written by Master Cotton, for the clea… › QUESTION •.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. Whereby, upon the presupposall of the careless or wilful disobedience of the world, either in refusing the means of grace in Christ, or abusing other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature, God rejecteth, or reprobateth them from all hope of life, and purposeth to condemn them for their sins, to the glorifying of his power, justice and wrath.
2. Whereby, upon the presupposall of the carelesse or wilfull disobedience of the world, either in refusing the meanes of grace in Christ, or abusing other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature, God rejecteth, or reprobateth them from all hope of life, and purposeth to condemne them for their sinnes, to the glorifying of his power, justice and wrath.
Non-election, absolute is an act of sovereignty, you grant; which also you call preterition. Let us speak distinctly, that the 1fairer way may be opened, to the discovery of truth and error. Preterition may be in time; as when, in giving grace to some, God passeth by others: or it may have place as well in not purposing to give grace to some, when he doth purpose to give grace to others, which purpose of his was from everlasting; and preterition in this sense, is all one with non-election. Now this non-election is either a negation of election unto grace, or a negation of election unto glory; It is here proposed indefinitely, and I conceive it is understood of both. Now it is true, that John Scot, and Francis Mayro after him, did sometimes shape the order of Gods decrees in this manner: In the first instant of nature, Peter and Judas being offered to the divine consideration, Deus volebat Petro gloriam, nihil volebat Judae; in the second instant, Deus volebat Petro gratiam, nihil volebat Judae; In the third instant, Deus volebat utrū que existere in massa corrupta; wherehence it followeth in the last place, (sayeth he) that the one shall infallibly be saved, the other damned. This sometimes seemed plausible to me, and I did prefer ⟨p. 44⟩