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…

Nay, this great searcher into the secrets of Nature, denied his Omnipotency, for they could not be drawn to believe that he was able to produce any thing out of nothing, this was the general opinion of them all in a manner. Thence he proceeded to deny that the world had a beginning: and to maintain that God wrought all that he wrought by necessity of nature, and not by freedom of will. Yet this eternal power and Godhead they did acknowledge, and that he was to be worshipped for the dignity of his nature. But not either out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward. Such notions were rather popular then Scholastical, a manifest evidence that the world was brought to conceive more soberly of the nature of God, by instinct of Nature, then by discourse of reason. For such as followed discourse of reason most, became most Atheistical as touching the providence of God; yet all agreed in this, that he was incorruptible, which was sufficient to convict them of impiety, in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God unto the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and creeping things. And did not they profit best in the School of Nature, who by the observation of providence in the way of mercies and judgments, were driven to acknowledge an unknown God, and to erect Altars for his worship? And as for seeking of the Lord, so as to find him in any comfortable manner, doth not the Apostle as good as confess despair of such ⟨p. 214⟩power in natural men, when forthwith he addeth, If so be they might have groped after him, and found him, though doubtless he be not far from every one of us, for in him we live, move, ¹and have our being. And yet as for the Apostles finding of him in this place, I should rather think that it is in reference to the apprehension of his nature (as the Creator of all) rather then of his goodness (as a Redeemer) so to find mercy from him though you seem to aim at this interpretation.

Nay, this great searcher into the secrets of Nature, denyed his Omnipotency, for they could not bee drawn to beleeve that hee was able to produce any thing out of nothing, this was the generall opinion of them all in a manner. Thence hee proceeded to deny that the world had a beginning: and to maintain that God wrought all that hee wrought by necessity of nature, and not by freedom of will. Yet this eternall power and Godhead they did acknowledge, and that hee was to bee worshipped for the dignity of his nature. But not either out of feare of punishment, or hope of reward. Such notions were rather popular then Scholasticall, a manifest evidence that the world was brought to conceive more soberly of the nature of God, by instinct of Nature, then by discourse of reason. For such as followed discourse of reason most, became most Atheisticall as touching the providence of God; yet all agreed in this, that hee was incorruptible, which was sufficient to convict them of impiety, in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God unto the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of foure-footed beasts, and creeping things. And did not they profit best in the Schoole of Nature, who by the observation of providence in the way of mercies and judgments, were driven to acknowledge an unknown God, and to erect Altars for his worship? And as for seeking of the Lord, so as to finde him in any comfortable manner, doth not the Apostle as good as confesse despaire of such