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…

I will not press you with the authority of Master Baynes, who denies Reprobation to be an act of justice; but thus I dispute: If Gods purpose to condemn to death, be an act of justice vindicative; then also Gods purpose to remunerate with eternal life, is an act of justice remunerative: And if Gods purpose of condemnation presuppose sin, it follows, that Gods purpose of remunerating with eternal life must also presuppose obedience; even obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; for all these God doth remunerate with eternal life. Here appeareth the foul tail of Arminianism, in the doctrine of Election, which this plausible doctrine of yours and of Master Moulins, in the point of Reprobation, draws after it. The consequence is manifest, though few or none consider it, even of them that are both Orthodox in Election, and most versed in the examining and discerning of just consequences. Now because this consequence, I presume, is unexpected, I imagine men may be moved to cast about, and consider how they may wind themselves ⟨p. 47⟩out of this dangerous inconvenience. And perhaps it may come to their minds to affirm, that they do not conceive Election under this form; namely, to be the decree of God to remunerate with everlasting life. And I verily believe they do not; for if they did, it were not possible they should continue Orthodox in the point of Election; but miserably betray their cause, by giving way to a doctrine (plainly contradictory) in the point of Reprobation. But why then do they not consider Election as they ought? Is it not generally confessed, that Election and Reprobation are contrary? why then should they not be shapen under contrarient forms? and what act, I pray you, is contrary to the act of justice vindicative, but the act of justice remunerative? But perhaps you may say, Though this be true, yet there is no place for such an opposition here; for as much as though a man may merit damnation by sin, yet he cannot merit salvation by obedience. I answer therefore, that this only shows there can be no opposition between them in a special kind of retribution, to wit, in the way of retribution according to desert on both sides; yet this hinders not, but that there may be, and indeed is, an opposition in the general of retribution: For it is well known, that God will reward every one according to his works;

I will not presse you with the authority of Master Baynes, who denyes Reprobation to be an act of justice; but thus I dispute: If Gods purpose to condemne to death, be an act of justice vindicative; then also Gods purpose to remunerate with eternall life, is an act of justice remunerative: And if Gods purpose of condemnation presuppose sinne, it followes, that Gods purpose of remunerating with eternall life must also presuppose obedience; even obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; for all these God doth remunerate with eternall life. Here appeareth the foule tayle of Arminianisme, in the doctrine of Election, which this plausible doctrine of yours and of Master Moulins, in the point of Reprobation, drawes after it. The consequence is manifest, though few or none consider it, even of them that are both Orthodox in Election, and most versed in the examining and discerning of just consequences. Now because this consequence, I presume, is unexpected, I imagine men may bee moved to cast about, and consider how they may wind themselves