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…

These two things above mentioned are granted not only by ¹the common consent of our Divines, but by the common consent also of all Christians, as I conceive, whether Papists or Arminians: yet observe, I pray, as touching the second, that sin is apparently made the cause only of condemnation, but not of Gods purpose; whereas hitherto you have carried the matter so, as if sin were the cause not only of condemnation, but also of Reprobation; as much as to say, of Gods purpose to condemn. But to say, that God for sin did purpose to condemn for sin, is so harsh an expression, that in all my reading I never found any adventure thereupon. Come we to your proper opinion: You do not acknowledge any unwillingness in God to reward the men of this world with life, upon any condition whatsoever. I know no reason why you should conceive any of our Divines to differ from you in this, although you had spoken out your meaning never so plainly and fully: not only denying unwillingness, but ⟨p. 55⟩acknowledging a willingness, as afterwards you do; not a willingness only which may have place though joined with a will to the contrary, as in all mixed actions, which yet are not incident to God, though they are to a creature, as who sometimes doth some thing volens nolens: for certainly, God will save any man upon condition he believes and repents: And on the other side, neither is there any unwillingness in God, but a willingness rather, yea and that a resolute will to damn any man in case he dyeth in infidelity and impenitency. For we have the clear word of God to justify us herein, professing most evidently, that, Whosoever believeth shall be saved; whosoever believeth not shall be damned. So that I wonder not a little whereto these expressions tend, save that commonly, such is the issue of imperfect conceptions, all preparations to the justifying of them fall miserably short of that whereunto they aim.

These two things above mentioned are granted not onely by ¹the common consent of our Divines, but by the common consent also of all Christians, as I conceive, whether Papists or Arminians: yet observe, I pray, as touching the second, that sinne is apparently made the cause onely of condemnation, but not of Gods purpose; whereas hitherto you have carryed the matter so, as if sinne were the cause not onely of condemnation, but also of Reprobation; as much as to say, of Gods purpose to condemne. But to say, that God for sinne did purpose to condemne for sin, is so harsh an expression, that in all my reading I never found any adventure thereupon. Come wee to your proper opinion: You doe not acknowledge any unwillingnesse in God to reward the men of this world with life, upon any condition whatsoever. I know no reason why you should conceive any of our Divines to differ from you in this, although you had spoken out your meaning never so plainly and fully: not onely denying unwillingnesse, but