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…

As touching the act positive of reprobation, I trust, when all things are rightly stated, there will appear to be as little reason, why there should be any difference between us in this act, as in the former. For what, I pray, is the meaning of this, God ordains none to condemnation, but upon sin presupposed? Is there any other meaning of the words then this; God hath ordained that no man shall be condemned, but for sin? who ever denied this? What one of our Divines, or Papists, or of any Sect, ever called this into question? But herehence it only follows, that sin is the cause of condemnation, and that by the ordination of God: it follows not, that sin is the cause of Gods ordination; although I confess the confusion of these is most frequent amongst our Divines, amongst Papists, though otherwise very learned, and chiefly among the Arminians, for the advantage of their cause; ⟨p. 46⟩yet see not a far greater advantage to their cause then any yet hath been taken hold of by any one of them: And this confusion alone is that which sets our Divines together by the ears, not considering the dangerous consequence here-hence, utterly overthrowing the Orthodox doctrine of our Churches, in the very point of Election, and bringing in Arminianism entire and whole; not in Reprobation only, as Master Moulin doth, and you seem to do; but in Election it self unavoidably, though hitherto, I confess, the Arminians have not been so happy as to discern it. I doubt not but your meaning is, in that Proposition, That sin is not only the cause of damnation, but of Gods decree also of ordaining thereunto. But to affirm this, seemed so foul to Aquinas, (namely, that there should be conceived a cause of Gods will, or Gods decree) that he professeth, never any man was so mad as to affirm it. But because the saying of Aquinas moves you little; why should it, seeing it little hindered not only Valentianus the Jesuit from saying as you do, but Alvarez also the Thomist, and a great Thomist? therefore I will proceed further: What should move you to affirm, That, to ordain to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice? Condemnation, I grant, is an act of vindicative justice, like as remuneration is an act of justice remunerative; but will it follow here-hence, that to ordain to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice?

As touching the act positive of reprobation, I trust, when all things are rightly stated, there will appeare to be as litle reason, why there should be any difference between us in this act, as in the former. For what, I pray, is the meaning of this, God ordaines none to condemnation, but upon sinne presupposed? Is there any other meaning of the words then this; God hath ordained that no man shall be condemned, but for sinne? who ever denyed this? What one of our Divines, or Papists, or of any Sect, ever called this into question? But herehence it only followes, that sinne is the cause of condemnation, and that by the ordination of God: it follows not, that sin is the cause of Gods ordination; although I confesse the confusion of these is most frequent amongst our Divines, amongst Papists, though otherwise very learned, and chiefly among the Arminians, for the advantage of their cause;