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…

But then you must be driven to deny that obduration is a punishment; seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin, as a meritorious cause thereof. That God beateth down the objector, and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates, from the sovereign authority of God over his creatures is most true, ver. 20, 21. But that he pleads the due desert of the persons, ver. 22. thereby to justify God in hardening whom he will, as positively avouched, but so far from truth, as that it involves plain contradiction; no less then if the Apostle after he had said that God hath mercy on whom he will, should afterward take a course to justify God herein, by saying that God hath mercy on none, but in respect to their former good works. ⟨p. 203⟩Nay, much more contradictions, for as much as no good works in the state of nature or grace, can be meritorious of reward. But sins may be and are truly meritorious of punishment. In the 22 vers. there is not the least mention of obduration, much less any mention of the cause thereof, least of all, any reversing of the former cause (expressed ver. 18. and justified ver. 20. from the authority of God the Creator, having power to make his creatures of what fashion he will,) and substituting a new in the place thereof. And although all that are vessels of wrath are sinners, and consequently deserve punishment, yet obduration, in opposition to showing mercy, consisting in the denial of saving grace, is no punishment, for as much as God doth not thereby withdraw any saving grace from them, which formerly they enjoyed; and as for inflicting evil, that hath no place in obduration, for as much as all confess that God doth not obdurate any man, infundendo malitiam, but non infundendo gratiam. Neither is it sin either original, or actual, that which constitutes a man a vessel of wrath, as a vessel of wrath is opposite to a vessel of mercy. For sin both original and actual is incident to the Elect as well as to the Reprobate: but like as Gods showing mercy makes a man a vessel of mercy: so Gods denial of mercy, finally constitutes a vessel of wrath, exposing him to final infidelity or impenitency, which sin alone is not found in any of the elect.

But then you must bee driven to deny that obduration is a punishment; seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin, as a meritorious cause thereof. That God beateth down the objectour, and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates, from the soveraign authority of God over his creatures is most true, ver. 20, 21. But that hee pleads the due desert of the persons, ver. 22. thereby to justifie God in hardning whom hee will, as positively avouched, but so farre from truth, as that it involves plain contradiction; no lesse then if the Apostle after hee had said that God hath mercy on whom hee will, should afterward take a course to justifie God herein, by saying that God hath mercy on none, but in respect to their former good works.